The recent life imprisonment sentence of Yoon Seok-yeol by the court did not address the citizens' resistance that thwarted his coup plot, raising concerns about the logic and fairness of the judgment.
On the 19th, the court sentenced Yoon Seok-yeol, identified as the leader behind an attempted coup, to life imprisonment, but notably omitted any mention of the citizens' resistance that played a crucial role in preventing the coup during its verdict. This omission has led critics to argue that the court's ruling actually favors Yoon by portraying his failed coup as a circumstance deserving of leniency rather than accountability. Furthermore, statements from the court have surprisingly categorized military and police officials involved in the coup as 'victims' rather than 'accomplices,' and it was suggested that Yoon's motivation for declaring martial law stemmed from supposed oppression by the opposition party, contradicting the rationale for the severe punishment.
The court's reasoning for sentencing Yoon, based on the failed coup and a lack of direct violent actions, has also been contested. Critics assert that the failure of the coup was not a matter of restraint from Yoon's side but rather the result of citizen opposition in front of the National Assembly and the passive response from military and police forces. The Constitutional Court previously highlighted the bravery of civilians confronting armed troops as a significant factor leading to Yoon's presidency's downfall, thus arguing for the appropriateness of heightened penalties given Yoon's background as a legal expert and former prosecutor. This contrasts sharply with the severe 23-year sentence given to another defendant, which took into account their constitutional responsibilities, raising questions about the fairness and rational basis for leniency in Yoon's case.
Moreover, the court's claim that Yoon had only decided on the martial law two days prior to the coup is being scrutinized. Evidence indicates that preparations for the coup, including the establishment of a command unit, were underway much earlier, during joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises. Conversations led by Yoon included discussions around mobilizing military forces, thereby challenging the court's characterization of these remarks as mere complaints. The court's minimization of Yoon's intentions and preparations has provoked skepticism regarding its commitment to justice and suggested potential biases in favor of the former president, thereby highlighting the complex interplay of political power and judicial outcomes in South Korea.
