The Seoul Central District Court has ruled on the implications of declaring martial law in South Korea under specific conditions, particularly regarding the invasion of the National Assembly's authority. During a sentencing hearing for former President Yoon, the court stated that if martial law is declared with the intention of undermining the powers of the National Assembly or infringing upon the administrative and judicial processes, it could lead to charges of insurrection under Article 91, Clause 2 of the criminal law. This law defines actions that disrupt constitutional order as illegal, especially if it involves coercively dismantling state agencies established by the constitution.

The court recognized that while there may be different interpretations regarding the formal requirements for declaring martial law, it is essential to respect the judgment of the President concerning substantive requirements. The justices emphasized that it is challenging to draw a line on whether procedural violations warrant legal challenges, indicating a cautious approach towards judicial review in cases involving national security and emergency powers. They also highlighted that any infringement harming the operation of the National Assembly could trigger charges of insurrection, and this applies equally to the President's actions.

In a related context, former President Yoon was implicated in attempting to announce unconstitutional martial law on December 3, 2024, allegedly mobilizing military and police forces to seize control of the National Assembly and detain key political figures without warrants, leading to charges of inciting a rebellion. This ruling reaffirms the potential for considerable legal consequences for governmental overreach, particularly concerning the fundamental principles of democracy and governance in South Korea.