In a recent ruling, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced former South Korean President Yoon Seok-yeol to life imprisonment for his leadership in a rebellion case, yet simultaneously determined that there was no proof of a conspiracy to impose martial law. This decision has placed a considerable burden on the special prosecutor's team, which is also handling a separate trial regarding Yoon's alleged infiltration of unmanned aerial vehicles to establish the justification for martial law at the time. The special prosecutor's office is reportedly unwilling to accept the court's characterization of the events as an 'accidental martial law' and is likely to actively contest this point in the appellate court proceedings, with a formal decision expected after an internal meeting on the 23rd.

The special prosecutor's team pointed out that the court largely dismissed their assertions regarding the preparation for martial law prior to October 2023. They highlighted multiple meetings between Yoon, former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, and various military commanders where the necessity for emergency powers and measures were discussed. These encounters included references to military actions that should be taken following a proclamation of martial law, with notes from military commanders' phones cited as evidence of a conspiracy period for such actions. Despite this, the court rejected the prosecution's claims, asserting that there was no premeditated plan for martial law beginning in 2023 and implied that Yoon's decision to declare martial law was made just two days prior to its announcement.

The ruling has sparked significant backlash from the special prosecutor's office, which argues that it is implausible for such critical decisions to be made in a haphazard manner without substantial prior consideration. They challenged the narrative that Yoon acted on impulse without prior communication with key military leaders and argued that the timeline and context of the meetings point to a more calculated approach. As the case progresses toward appeal, the implications of this ruling could have profound effects on public trust in the judicial process and the political landscape in South Korea, especially given the highly sensitive nature of martial law in the country's recent history.