South Korean court rules Yoon’s martial law illegal as walls close in

Once South Korea’s top prosecutor and head of state, Yoon Suk-yeol now faces the courtroom reckoning of a lifetime, as successive rulings brand his failed attempt to impose martial law “unconstitutional and unlawful”, setting the stage for a verdict that could carry the death penalty. In one of the most consequential legal findings since the country’s return to democracy in 1987, the 21st Criminal Court of Seoul Central District Court on Monday declared that the 2024 martial law decree orchestrated under Yoon’s command had violated both South Korea’s constitution and its criminal code. The judgment, issued during the bribery trial of former army intelligence chief Noh Sang-won, marked the first time a criminal court had explicitly classified the declaration as illegal – a verdict that could now shape the outcome of Yoon’s own insurrection trial. Noh, who was convicted of corruption, now faces a separate trial alongside the ex-president and former defence minister Kim Yong-hyun, who prosecutors say joined in the plot to subvert the National Assembly and concentrate power in Yoon’s hands. There would be enormous public backlash if Yoon were set free again Lim Ji-bong, law professor By declaring the martial law decree both unconstitutional and unlawful, the ruling had effectively paved the way for other courts, including the one handling Yoon’s case, “to follow suit”, said Lim Ji-bong, a law professor at Sogang University. That prospect looms largest in the 25th Criminal Court, where Judge Ji Gwui-yeon presides over Yoon’s insurrection trial. Ji has previously drawn criticism for rulings perceived as sympathetic to the former president, including his temporary release from detention in March on technical grounds. Prosecutors later rearrested Yoon on new counts of resisting arrest and perjury. “There would be enormous public backlash if Yoon were set free again,” Lim said, adding that conviction could carry the death penalty or life imprisonment under South Korea’s Criminal Act – though the state has not carried out an execution in almost 28 years. Release hopes dashed The legal walls surrounding Yoon continue to close in. On Tuesday, a separate panel of the Seoul Central District Court said it intended to deliver a verdict in another of his criminal cases by January 16 – just two days before the expiry of the statutory six-month detention limit, dashing Yoon’s faint hopes of temporary release early next year. “Judging from the fact that security guards testified in court that Yoon told them to carry weapons to scare away investigators and the police attempting to arrest him, he is highly likely to receive a jail sentence, depriving himself of any chance to be freed, even briefly,” Lim said. The case in the 35th Criminal Court concerns Yoon’s alleged obstruction of arrest in January, when law enforcers were forced to scale makeshift barricades and confront an armed security team to reach the ex-president. Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyun said the court planned to conclude arguments “by December 26 at the latest” and deliver its verdict by January 16 next year. Yoon, appearing visibly dismayed by the court’s proclamation, insisted that his actions fell outside the scope of judicial scrutiny. “It is the prevailing view that a president’s declaration of martial law is not subject to judicial review,” he told the bench, calling for the verdict to be postponed until after his insurrection trial concludes. A ruling in that case is expected as early as February. Yoon’s defence team has repeated his argument, warning of procedural overlap between cases. Adding to his legal headaches, Yoon has also been charged with perjury and “benefiting the enemy” by ordering drones into North Korean airspace last year to manufacture a pretext for declaring martial law. Some drones crashed in the North with intact flight data, which investigators allege may have aided Pyongyang’s military intelligence. Further accusations include falsifying a second martial law decree after the original was revoked, then destroying related presidential records – acts that prosecutors say amounted to illegal destruction of official documents. Yoon also allegedly directed subordinates to delete encrypted phone logs belonging to a senior counter-intelligence commander, erasing potential evidence of deliberations surrounding the failed attempt at what critics call a “self-coup”. For many legal scholars, the result is a foregone conclusion. Actions such as deploying troops to block legislative functions or arrest lawmakers amounted to insurrection “no matter the motivation”, said Kim Seon-taek, a professor of criminal law at Korea University. “I cannot imagine how a court could rule otherwise.”

South Korean court rules Yoon’s martial law illegal as walls close in

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Judges are fast-tracking verdicts to beat statutory time limits, dashing the ex-president’s faint hopes of walking free early next year

Judges are fast-tracking verdicts to beat statutory time limits, dashing the ex-president’s faint hopes of walking free early next year