Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, accused of ordering drones to be sent into North Korea to create a pretext for the illegal 12·3 martial law proclamation, was sentenced at first instance to 30 years in prison.

Yoon maintained that the operation had no relation to martial law and was a legitimate military operation to respond to North Korea launching trash balloons. However, the court determined it was “an operation concocted to create a ‘national emergency,’ the condition for declaring emergency martial law.” His side immediately appealed the ruling that day.

The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 36 (Presiding Judge Lee Jeong-yeop) on the 12th found former President Yoon guilty on charges of general aiding the enemy and abuse of authority interfering with the exercise of rights, and sentenced him to 30 years in prison. Former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, tried on the same charges, was sentenced to 30 years, and former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyeong was sentenced to 15 years. Former Drone Operations Command commander Kim Yong-dae, indicted on charges including abuse of authority and instigation to damage military property, received 3 years in prison, suspended for 5 years.

The bench stated, “The drone infiltration operation into Pyongyang was an operation intended to create the conditions for emergency martial law,” and added, “It cannot be regarded as a legitimate military operation.” The court first found that from September 2024, former President Yoon, former Minister Kim, and former Commander Yeo discussed emergency martial law, and, in that context, “Yoon and others needed to create a situation that would allow an emergency martial law declaration.”

It went on, “Former Minister Kim proceeded with the operation even at times when North Korea was not launching trash balloons, and he pushed ahead even when the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed opposition,” adding, “If the purpose had been to respond to trash balloons, it is difficult to explain why strong means were mobilized even when the prerequisites were not met; rather, because North Korea was not provoking, these orders should be seen as intended to heighten the possibility of a physical response.”

The court found that the ‘drone insertion operation’ devised by former President Yoon and others for political purposes, not out of military necessity, “provided North Korea with justification for provocation, caused harm resulting from military clashes, and infringed the military interests of the Republic of Korea.”

The bench held that the defendants do not become less culpable merely because the drone operation did not actually lead to a powerful North Korean military provocation. The bench said, “Because the forms of North Korea’s provocations are hard to predict, it cannot be concluded that this operation would not have prompted North Korea to stage provocations against our military that involved loss of life, and former President Yoon and former Minister Kim would have anticipated that,” and added, “If the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suspecting the intent of former Minister Kim, had not adopted a passive response, the operation could have been carried out more frequently and could have led to armed conflict.”

Explaining the reasons for sentencing, the court stated, “Former President Yoon carried out the drone operation for political gain,” and criticized, “It betrayed the basic trust of the public that the president and the Minister of National Defense will use military force only for legitimate purposes.” It continued, “The authority to declare emergency martial law is vested in the president based on military necessity in a national emergency, but instead he sought to deliberately create an emergency in order to declare emergency martial law,” and added, “This squarely contradicts the purpose of the power to declare emergency martial law.”

For former Commander Yeo, the court took into account as a favorable circumstance that he appeared to have participated only passively in the orders of former President Yoon and former Minister Kim; for former Commander Kim, it took into account as favorable that he appeared not to know that the real purpose of the drone operation was ‘creating the requirements for declaring emergency martial law’.

After the sentencing, the special counsel team on the insurrection case told reporters, “It has been recognized that the drone operation was aimed at an emergency martial law situation,” and evaluated, “This was a judgment on the duplicity of those who should have been responsible for national security but abandoned it to maintain political power.” The allegation of sending drones into Pyongyang was cited as the most important subject of clarification for Special Counsel Cho Eun-seok’s team.

His side immediately appealed the ruling that day. The defense team held a press conference right after the sentencing, saying, “While preparing this case, we never once thought a guilty verdict would be delivered,” and added, “If the judiciary keeps inventing far-fetched logic to continue an insurrection drive and an aiding-the-enemy drive, future generations will inevitably pay the price.”