Former President Yoon Suk-yeol persisted in presenting his justification for declaring martial law during the December 3 insurrection, but a court has rejected his claims, asserting that there was no national emergency warranting such actions.
On December 20, former President Yoon Suk-yeol released a statement characterizing the December 3 insurrection as a 'national decision for the country.' He reiterated his narrative that the declaration of martial law was a necessary response to what he described as legislative dictatorship and budgetary tyranny from the opposition Democratic Party, which had pushed for impeachment motions against him. However, a first-instance court ruling just a day earlier, which sentenced him to life in prison on charges of being a leader of the insurrection, completely dismissed his arguments.
The 1,252-page judgment issued by the Seoul Central District Court's 25th Criminal Division, presided over by Judge Ji Gwi-yeon, clarified that the state of national emergency that Yoon claimed to justify his martial law declaration did not meet the necessary conditions; the situation was not comparable to wartime or an insurrection. The court noted that mobilization of troops was unnecessary, concluding that Yoon's declaration failed to satisfy the substantive requirements for such a severe measure. The ruling analyzed the actions of Democratic Party lawmakers and indicated that while they initiated impeachment motions against several government officials, there was no situation described that hampered the execution of governmental and judicial functions severely enough to warrant a national emergency intervention.
Furthermore, the court indicated that Yoon's claims regarding emergency created by the legislative actions of the Democratic Party were unfounded. It stated that Yoon had not taken any actions against the bills passed by the opposition in a way that would create a constitutional crisis, as he had not requested reconsideration or withheld promulgation of those laws. The implications of this judgment might resonate deeply within the political landscape of South Korea, undermining Yoon’s justification for his actions during a highly contentious political period and raising larger questions about the limits of executive power in emergencies.
