The Seoul Central District Court has recently delivered a significant ruling in the trial of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who has been sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of insurrection leadership. Key to the court’s decision was the acknowledgment of Yoon's potential plans for a second martial law following the National Assembly's resolution to lift martial law. The court's comprehensive ruling detailed how Yoon allegedly instructed against the resolution's passage, implying that he would implement consecutive martial laws regardless of the Assembly's decisions.

In its 1,252-page verdict, the court dismissed Yoon's argument regarding military secrecy laws and the necessity of obtaining higher authority approval for actions taken in the presidential residence area. The judges clarified that existing criminal procedure laws do not protect the execution of arrest warrants from being deemed illegal, even without such consent. The court noted that military secrecy applies to specific objects or purposes and stated that the arrest of a suspect during a search in a location deemed for military secrecy does not necessarily negate the legality of the arrest.

Furthermore, the trial court criticized the processes employed by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), which had transferred the case to the prosecutors, deeming any evidence collected thereafter as illegal. However, while acknowledging procedural violations, the court maintained that those do not undermine the material integrity of the trial's evidence. This ruling reflects ongoing political tensions in South Korea, highlighting the serious implications for judicial independence and the rule of law in cases involving high-profile figures.