Listen to the article
South Korean prosecutors have demanded the death penalty for former President Yoon Suk Yeol over his imposition of martial law in December 2024, marking an unprecedented legal action against a former head of state.
Independent counsel Cho Eun-suk’s team requested capital punishment during proceedings at the Seoul Central District Court on Tuesday, characterizing Yoon’s actions as “anti-state activities” and “a self-coup.” The prosecution alleges Yoon intended to prolong his rule by undermining constitutional governance structures.
Yoon, who has been imprisoned since his removal from office last April, vehemently rejected these allegations during his court appearance, describing the investigation as “frenzied” and involving “manipulation” and “distortion.” He defended his martial law declaration as a necessary measure to alert the public about what he viewed as threats posed by the opposition Democratic Party.
The court is expected to deliver its verdict in February. Legal experts suggest a life imprisonment sentence is more likely than execution, noting that South Korea has not carried out a death penalty since 1997, with courts rarely imposing capital punishment in recent decades.
Yoon’s martial law decree, the first in over 40 years, resulted in armed troops surrounding the National Assembly and occupying election offices in Seoul. Although no major injuries occurred, the incident evoked traumatic memories of military dictatorships from the 1970s and 1980s, when similar measures were used to suppress pro-democracy movements.
The decree prompted immediate public backlash, with thousands of citizens gathering at the National Assembly in protest. Lawmakers, including members of Yoon’s own party, successfully voted to nullify the decree that same night.
Political analysts describe the episode as a spectacular downfall for Yoon, who had risen to prominence as a prosecutor before winning the presidency in 2022. The National Assembly impeached him following the martial law incident, and South Korea’s Constitutional Court formally removed him from office.
The political crisis created by Yoon’s actions disrupted high-level diplomacy and unsettled financial markets in South Korea, a key economic power in East Asia and critical U.S. ally. Lee Jae Myung, who led impeachment efforts against Yoon as Democratic Party leader, subsequently won the presidency in a special election last June.
After taking office, President Lee appointed three independent counsels to investigate allegations surrounding Yoon, his wife, and associates. While speculation initially suggested Yoon declared martial law to shield his wife from corruption investigations, Cho’s team concluded after a six-month probe that Yoon had planned the move for over a year to eliminate political rivals and consolidate power.
Beyond the rebellion charges, Yoon faces multiple other criminal trials. Prosecutors have requested a 10-year sentence for charges including abuse of power and document falsification. Additional cases involve allegations he ordered provocative drone flights over North Korea to create a pretext for martial law, manipulated an investigation into a marine’s drowning, and received illicit campaign assistance.
Park SungBae, a criminal law specialist, noted that sentences from these parallel cases could become significant if Yoon avoids the most severe penalties for rebellion. Both the prosecution and defense can appeal the verdict through South Korea’s three-tiered court system, with a final Supreme Court ruling expected later this year.
The sweeping investigation has ensnared numerous officials from Yoon’s administration. Prosecutors have requested a life sentence for his defense minister, Kim Yong Hyun, and prison terms of 10-30 years for various military and police commanders. Yoon’s wife was arrested and indicted on bribery charges in August.
Yoon is the first South Korean president to face potential execution after leaving office since former military ruler Chun Doo-hwan, whose 1996 death sentence was later commuted and eventually resulted in a pardon.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
This is a high-stakes and politically-charged case that could have major implications for South Korea’s democracy. I hope the court is able to make an impartial ruling based solely on the evidence, without external political pressure or public opinion influencing the outcome.
That’s a good point. Maintaining the independence and integrity of the judicial system is critical, especially in such a sensitive case involving a former head of state.
I’m curious to learn more about the specific events and context that led to this situation. Martial law declarations are always extremely concerning, even if the leader claims they were necessary. I hope the full truth comes to light through the judicial process.
Agreed, the details and rationale behind the martial law decree will be crucial in assessing the legitimacy of the former president’s actions. Transparency and a fair hearing are essential.
While the alleged abuses of power by the former president are extremely concerning, the death penalty seems like an overly harsh punishment, even for such serious offenses. I hope the court considers alternative sentences that are more proportionate and in line with South Korea’s recent sentencing practices.
I agree, the death penalty seems disproportionate given South Korea’s move away from capital punishment in recent decades. A life sentence or lengthy prison term may be more appropriate if the charges are substantiated.
The allegations of a ‘self-coup’ and ‘anti-state activities’ are very serious. It will be important to closely follow the court proceedings and evidence presented. While the death penalty seems excessive, any abuse of power by a former head of state should be thoroughly investigated and punished if warranted.
You raise a good point. The legal process needs to be rigorous and impartial, no matter who is involved. Rushing to judgment or using disproportionate penalties would undermine the integrity of the system.
This is an unprecedented and troubling development. The use of martial law and attempts to cling to power are extremely concerning, regardless of the specific details. I hope the judicial process is fair and impartial, and that the outcome upholds the rule of law and democratic principles.
Agreed, it’s critical that the legal system functions independently and without political interference, even in high-profile cases like this.