In the Constitutional Court’s ruling, five of the eight justices voted against Prime Minister Han Duck-soo’s impeachment, while only one justice voted for it.

The majority found that all five reasons for impeachment, including “aiding and abetting Yoon’s martial law declaration and rebellion,” “refusing to appoint a constitutional court judge,” “vetoing bills mandating special counsel investigations into First Lady Kim Keon-hee and Marine Corps Corporal Chae’s death” “attempting to jointly conduct state affairs with former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon,” and “avoiding the appointment of prosecutors for a permanent special investigation team for Yoon’s rebellion,” did not constitute grounds for his dismissal. Regarding President Yoon Suk-yeol’s imposition of martial law on December 3 last year, which could be linked to the ruling of Yoon’s impeachment trial, the court only found that Han was “not actively involved” and did not say whether the martial law was unconstitutional or illegal. Only Judge Jung Gye-seon said that the delay in recommending a candidate for a permanent special investigation team for Yoon’s rebellion and the refusal to appoint a candidate for constitutional court judge were “violations of the constitution that justify dismissal.”

Judges Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-sun, Kim Hyung-doo, Jung Jung-mi, Kim Bok-hyung, and Jung Gye-seon did not acknowledge the reason for the impeachment that Han conspired and assisted in declaring martial law. They said, "The respondent heard the plan to declare the emergency martial law from the president only two hours before the declaration, and there is no evidence or objective data to admit that he knew it before that." They added, “It is admitted that he suggested to the president that a meeting be convened to hear the opinions of the members of the Cabinet before the declaration of martial law. But there is no evidence that he took any active role in the declaration of martial law.” This is all the judgment that the Constitutional Court has made on martial law.

The judges also did not accept the National Assembly’s claim that Prime Minister Han attempted to “jointly conduct state affairs“ with former People Power Party (PPP) leader Han Dong-hoon. Regarding Prime Minister Han’s exercise of right to veto on bills mandating special counsel investigations into First Lady Kim Keon-hee and Marine Corps Corporal Chae’s death, they said, "It is difficult to conclude that it has had a substantial impact on the president's own exercise of authority or that it has encouraged or neglected it."

The judges were split on the reasons of “refusing to appoint a constitutional court judge” and “avoiding the appointment of prosecutors for a permanent special investigation team for Yoon’s rebellion.” Four of the five judges (Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-sun, Kim Hyung-doo, and Jung Jung-mi) believed that Han’s withholding of the appointment of a constitutional court judge constituted a violation of the Constitution and law. However, they did not consider them serious enough to lead to his dismissal.

On the other hand, Judge Jung Gye-seon found that “the respondent amplified the controversy by engaging in illegal behavior despite his obligation to promptly resolve the national turmoil under the circumstances where the president was suspended from performing his duties” and that “the degree of unconstitutionality and illegality is grave enough to justify his dismissal.” Jung pointed out that Han had refused to appoint a constitutional court judge on the grounds that “the acting president can only exercise minimal powers to maintain the status quo,” but vetoed a bill passed by the National Assembly, calling it “contradictory state management.”

Regarding the reason that Han delayed the recommendation of prosecutors for a permanent special investigation team for Yoon’s rebellion, the five dissenting judges found that it was not unconstitutional or illegal because “the circumstance suggests that he needed time to consider the appropriateness of the recommendation and its impact.”

The Constitutional Court said that there were no problems with the procedures, such as the quorum for the National Assembly’s voting, as pointed out by Han. “Considering the magnitude of the democratic legitimacy of the acting president which is different from that of the president, and the purpose of the impeachment trial system, which is to safeguard the Constitution by restoring the powers given by the people through depriving the public post, the quorum for impeachment proceedings against Han is a majority of the members of the National Assembly in accordance with the Constitution,” the Constitutional Court said. However, Judges Cheong Hyung-sik and Cho Han-chang said, “The acting president is a person who performs ‘presidential duties’ in an emergency situation of the president‘s abdication or accident, so the acting president should be considered to be in a ’position equivalent to the president.’”