Yoon Suk-yeol’s ’12·3 Coup’ Claim Rejected by Court in First Ruling

Seoul, South Korea – Ousted South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol remained defiant Friday, characterizing the martial law declaration that led to his downfall as a “patriotic decision” aimed at safeguarding the nation. The statement comes a day after a court sentenced him to life in prison for leading an insurrection.

Yoon, in his first public response to Thursday’s verdict, reiterated his previous claims that the imposition of martial law in December 2024 was necessary to counter what he described as obstructionist tactics by the opposition-controlled National Assembly. He specifically cited impeachment attempts and unilateral passage of budgetary measures as justification for the controversial move.

However, the Seoul Central District Court, in its 1,252-page ruling, thoroughly rejected Yoon’s arguments. The court found that the conditions did not meet the legal threshold for invoking martial law.

According to the court’s judgment, “At the time of the declaration of martial law, there was no state of emergency comparable to war or rebellion, nor was there a need to deploy troops. We see reasonable to conclude that the martial law declaration did not meet the substantive requirements.”

The court detailed the political context leading up to the declaration, noting that between Yoon’s inauguration and the imposition of martial law, opposition parties had filed 22 impeachment motions against various government officials, including ministers and heads of independent agencies. Five of those motions were approved by the National Assembly, though three were later dismissed by the Constitutional Court.

“The situation did not reach a point where the functioning of the state’s administrative and judicial branches was severely hampered,” the court stated.

The court also dismissed Yoon’s assertion that the martial law declaration was prompted by concerns over alleged irregularities in the parliamentary process. The court found that Yoon had the option of requesting a reconsideration of passed legislation or withholding his approval, rather than resorting to martial law. “The court found that the legislative actions of the National Assembly did not create a state of emergency that justified the deployment of troops,” the ruling stated.

the court rejected claims made by Yoon and former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun that sending troops to the National Election Commission was intended to investigate alleged voting irregularities. The court argued that such concerns, if they existed, should have been addressed through established legal channels – investigation, prosecution, and judicial review – rather than through the imposition of martial law and military deployment.

“Simply alleging the existence of suspicions is not sufficient to create a state of emergency comparable to war or rebellion, where social order is extremely disrupted and the functioning of administrative and judicial functions is severely hampered,” the court wrote. “If such suspicions exist, they should be resolved through investigation or prosecution and trial, not by declaring martial law and deploying troops.” The court emphasized that military intervention is inappropriate unless a crisis cannot be resolved through conventional means.

The case against Yoon unfolded over 443 days, involving 43 court hearings and testimony from approximately 160 witnesses, including senior military and police officials. The proceedings were consolidated with cases against those officials accused of playing a role in the alleged insurrection.

Park Ji-young and Lee Na-young reported this story.