On the 19th of a recent ruling, the Seoul Central District Court recognized former President Yoon Suk-yeol as guilty of charges relating to a constitutional rebellion. The court highlighted that the purpose of the December 3 emergency martial law was aimed explicitly at incapacitating the functions of the National Assembly, branding it unconstitutional disruption. Despite Yoon's argument that there were no casualties and the martial law was lifted within two hours, the court determined that the deployment of martial law troops constituted a 'rebellion.'

The court's ruling indicates that Yoon's intent to intervene in the parliamentary functions during a time when the opposition party was moving to impeach bureaucrats and cut budgets posed a serious threat to constitutional order. The judges revealed that Yoon claimed a lack of appropriate actions in response to the crisis posed by the opposition, which they characterized as a flawed justification lacking in both purpose and legitimacy. The court firmly stated that national crisis scenarios do not justify unconstitutional actions, comparable to the idea that one cannot commit theft under the guise of reading the Bible.

Furthermore, the court pointed to the explicit language in the emergency declaration documents which indicated an intent to suppress political activities, stating that the declaration included references to eradicating 'anti-state forces' and banned the National Assembly's activities. The evidence clearly led to a conclusion that the purpose of the martial law was to prevent lawmakers from conducting discussions or decision-making. Notably, Yoon accepted accusations about ordering the removal of lawmakers and detaining 14 politicians during a fierce legal exchange, reflecting further on the serious legal implications surrounding his actions.