Why was ex-South Korean President Yoon sentenced to life imprisonment?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
Seoul, Feb 19 (NationPress) On Thursday, a court sentenced the former President of South Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, to life imprisonment following his unsuccessful attempt to enforce martial law in 2024.
This landmark ruling from the Seoul Central District Court found Yoon guilty of instigating an insurrection through his martial law proposal, although the penalty was less severe than the death sentence sought by special prosecutors, as reported by Yonhap News Agency.
The court emphasized that the martial law directive constituted an insurrection, as it aimed to incapacitate the National Assembly by deploying military forces to the parliamentary grounds.
Repeatedly, the court highlighted that Yoon's actions involved the mobilization of troops to the National Assembly.
The proceedings were attended by the incarcerated former president and were broadcast live across the nation.
Yoon faced indictment in January of the previous year for leading an insurrection through his brief martial law declaration on December 3, 2024, which lasted for six hours.
The indictment stated that Yoon conspired with former Defence Minister Kim Yong-hyun and others to orchestrate a riot aimed at undermining the Constitution, declaring martial law without a war or equivalent national emergency.
During the final hearing last month, special counsel Cho Eun-suk argued for the death penalty, asserting that Yoon deserved the maximum sentence for his attempt to declare martial law “to remain in power by suppressing the judiciary and legislature.”
“The severity of the crime is significant, as he mobilized resources that should have been used for the benefit of the nation,” the counsel's team stated.
In his closing remarks, Yoon maintained his innocence, asserting that invoking a president's constitutional right to declare a state of emergency cannot be classified as insurrection.
“This was not a military dictatorship suppressing citizens, but a genuine effort to protect freedom and sovereignty, and restore constitutional order,” he argued.