The court has sentenced former President Yoon Suk-yeol to five years in prison on charges including ‘obstruction of arrest’. This is the judiciary’s first judgment among the eight criminal trials Yoon faces. Although separate from the ‘main’ trial on the charge of being a ringleader of insurrection, this case is drawing attention as the first to present the illegality in the process of the unlawful martial-law proclamation on 12·3.

The 35th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyun) held the first-instance sentencing hearing from 2 p.m. on the 16th on charges including obstruction of special official duties and abuse of authority to interfere with the exercise of rights, and pronounced the sentence, stating, “As president, he had a duty more than anyone else to uphold the Constitution, yet he slighted measures intended to prevent presidential arbitrariness, and thus deserves censure.”

Yoon was arrested and indicted in July of the same year by Special Counsel Cho Eun-seok’s insurrection team on charges that on January 3 of last year he mobilized Presidential Security Service staff to block the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). He is also charged with convening only some cabinet members to give the appearance of a cabinet meeting at the time martial law was proclaimed on December 3, 2024, thereby infringing the martial-law deliberation rights of nine cabinet members who could not attend.

Yoon’s side has argued that the special counsel’s additional indictment regarding the cabinet meeting before the proclamation of martial law constitutes double jeopardy, and that in situations like the proclamation of martial law, which require urgency and secrecy, notice of the meeting may be given only to some cabinet members. They also claimed that the CIO lacked investigative authority and that the execution of the arrest warrant in January last year was unlawful.

However, the court rejected all such arguments. It stated, “Considering the institutional significance of cabinet deliberation over the exercise of presidential authority, every cabinet member has the authority, as a member of the meeting, to deliberate on state affairs,” adding, “When the president convenes a cabinet meeting, all members must be notified, and if some cabinet members are absent, their deliberation rights can be deemed to have been infringed.”

It further pointed out, “There is no provision that allows omission of notice to convene cabinet members in urgent cases,” and added, “The defendant claims he proclaimed martial law to resolve the Democratic Party of Korea’s attempt to bring an impeachment motion and the ‘allegations of electoral fraud’, but it is hard to regard this as an emergency that justified failing to convene all cabinet members.”

Regarding the CIO’s investigative authority, the court held, “The Criminal Procedure Act provides that, except where the president has committed the crimes of insurrection·foreign aggression, he does not receive criminal prosecution, but it does not limit investigation itself of the president,” concluding that “the CIO may investigate the defendant’s abuse of authority to interfere with the exercise of rights even when he held the status of president.”

It continued, “While investigating the abuse of authority to interfere with the exercise of rights, the CIO determined that the ringleader-of-insurrection charge constituted a ‘related offense’ and commenced an investigation,” adding, “Because the facts underlying the two charges are identical and directly connected, the defendant’s ringleader-of-insurrection charge would inevitably surface in the course of investigating the abuse-of-authority charge, establishing relatedness; therefore, the CIO may investigate former President Yoon’s ringleader-of-insurrection offense as a related crime.”

The court also found that the CIO’s execution of the arrest warrant on January 3 of last year was lawful. It stated, “It is clear that the presidential residence is a location requiring military secrecy, but with respect to a president then under investigation on suspicion of being a ringleader of insurrection, it was lawful even without the consent of the head of the security service, who was responsible.”

The court explained its sentencing rationale: “Despite the egregious nature of the offense, the defendant has consistently offered implausible excuses and has shown no remorse. It is necessary to set right the damaged rule of law, and a severe punishment is required.”

Yoon appeared wearing a navy suit and white shirt, as in previous hearings. Sitting with a calm expression, blinking only occasionally, he continued to gaze straight ahead even when the court pronounced the prison sentence.

With the court granting broadcasters’ requests to air the session, the sentencing was broadcast live. Earlier, the special counsel had asked the court to impose a 10-year prison term.