South Korean Court Hands Former President Yoon Suk Yeol Five-Year Prison Sentence Over Martial Law Crisis

BY Rosemary

A South Korean court on Friday sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to five years in prison, delivering the first verdict in a sweeping series of eight criminal trials stemming from his brief imposition of martial law and a range of related allegations that ultimately ended his presidency.

The ruling marks a major legal milestone in the aftermath of the December 2024 crisis, when Yoon’s sudden declaration of martial law ignited mass public protests, paralyzed the government and led to his impeachment, arrest and removal from office. The sentence was handed down by the Seoul Central District Court, which found Yoon guilty of multiple offenses connected to the way he announced and attempted to enforce the decree.

The most serious charge Yoon faces remains unresolved. Prosecutors appointed as independent counsel have accused him of rebellion, arguing that his use of martial law powers constituted an unlawful attempt to undermine constitutional order and cling to authority. They have requested the death penalty in that case. The court is scheduled to issue a separate ruling on the rebellion charge on Feb. 19.

Throughout the investigations and court proceedings, Yoon has denied that he intended to place South Korea under prolonged military rule. He has argued that the martial law declaration was a temporary and symbolic measure meant to warn the public about what he described as obstruction by a parliament controlled by the liberal opposition. Investigators, however, concluded that the move was designed to strengthen and extend his grip on power, leading to charges that include rebellion, abuse of authority and interference with state institutions.

In Friday’s case, the court focused on Yoon’s actions surrounding the declaration itself. Judges found that he defied lawful attempts by authorities to detain him, fabricated elements of the martial law proclamation and bypassed a constitutionally required full Cabinet meeting. By doing so, the court said, Yoon deprived several Cabinet members of their legal right to debate and decide on an issue of extraordinary national importance.

Delivering the verdict in a televised session, Judge Baek Dae-hyun said a severe punishment was warranted because Yoon had shown no remorse and continued to offer what the court described as implausible explanations for his conduct. The judge emphasized the need to restore legal and constitutional systems damaged by Yoon’s actions, calling the former president’s behavior a serious breach of democratic norms.

Yoon’s legal team immediately vowed to appeal the sentence. In a statement, his lawyers argued that the ruling was politically motivated and reflected what they described as biased arguments advanced by the independent counsel. They also said the court failed to properly distinguish between the legitimate exercise of presidential authority and criminal liability, an issue they intend to challenge at higher levels of the judiciary.

Legal experts say the upcoming rebellion verdict is unlikely to result in an execution, despite the prosecution’s request. Park Sung-bae, a criminal law specialist, said South Korean courts have rarely imposed the death penalty in recent decades and that the country has effectively observed a moratorium on executions since 1997. He predicted that, if convicted of rebellion, Yoon would more likely receive a life sentence or a prison term of 30 years or more.

Park noted that the court would probably weigh the fact that Yoon’s martial law decree did not lead to casualties and was short-lived, even though the former president has not expressed genuine remorse. He added that South Korea has a long history of eventually pardoning former presidents convicted of serious crimes in the name of national reconciliation. Past beneficiaries of such pardons have included Chun Doo-hwan, a former military ruler who was initially sentenced to death for his role in a 1979 coup and the violent suppression of pro-democracy protests the following year.

Even if Yoon avoids the harshest penalties in the rebellion case, he still faces significant legal jeopardy. The remaining trials involve a series of additional accusations that could add years to his prison term. Some political observers believe Yoon’s defiant posture in court is intended to preserve loyalty among his remaining supporters, based on the calculation that while he may not escape a lengthy sentence, he could eventually seek clemency under a future administration.

The roots of Yoon’s downfall trace back to the night of Dec. 3, 2024, when he appeared on national television to announce martial law, vowing to eliminate what he called “anti-state forces” and to protect the constitutional democratic order. He ordered troops and police to surround the National Assembly, but security forces did not fully seal off the building. Enough lawmakers managed to enter the chamber and vote to overturn the decree, effectively ending it within hours.

Although the episode passed without major violence, it plunged South Korea into its most severe political crisis in decades, unsettling financial markets and straining diplomatic relationships. For many citizens, the spectacle of soldiers deployed around parliament evoked painful memories of authoritarian rule in the 1970s and 1980s, when military-backed governments relied on martial law and emergency powers to crush dissent.

Following Yoon’s removal, his liberal rival Lee Jae Myung won a snap presidential election last June. After taking office, Lee appointed multiple independent counsels to investigate allegations involving Yoon, his wife and close associates, expanding the legal scrutiny surrounding the former administration.

Among the remaining charges against Yoon are accusations that he ordered drone flights over North Korea in an effort to deliberately heighten tensions and create a pretext for declaring martial law. Other cases involve claims that he interfered in the investigation of a marine’s drowning in 2023 and accepted free public opinion surveys from an election broker in exchange for political favors.

As the trials continue, Yoon’s case has become a defining test of South Korea’s legal and democratic institutions, underscoring how fragile constitutional order can be when executive power is pushed to its limits.