Seven trials, one former president: Yoon faces first of several reckonings next week

Home > National > Politics

Seven trials, one former president: Yoon faces first of several reckonings next week

Published: 09 Jan. 2026, 07:00

MICHAEL LEE
[email protected]

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol speaks during his trial on insurrection charges at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on Dec. 29, 2025. [SEOUL CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT]

[EXPLAINER]

When the Seoul Central District Court delivers the first of several verdicts in cases involving former President Yoon Suk Yeol next week, it will pass judgment on one of the most consequential episodes in modern South Korean political history: his short-lived declaration of martial law on Dec. 3, 2024.

Yoon, who was removed from office by the Constitutional Court five months afterward, currently faces seven separate criminal trials related to his actions while in office. The concurrent cases represent the most extensive judicial scrutiny of a former president’s conduct since South Korea became a democracy in 1987.

Prosecutors accuse Yoon not only of abusing the powers of his office, but of trying to use the machinery of the executive branch — the military, the police and the Presidential Security Service (PSS) — for political ends that threatened the constitutional order.

Of the seven cases, four were brought by a special counsel appointed to investigate the martial law crisis and its aftermath. Three others were filed by the regular prosecution service and involve separate allegations of abuse of power and political interference during Yoon’s presidency. Although the cases differ in scope and seriousness, courts are now moving forward on several of them at the same time.

Two cases stand out. The most serious accuses Yoon of leading an insurrection through his attempt to impose martial law. The other focuses on allegations that he obstructed investigators and interfered with the execution of arrest warrants. The remaining cases — including trials involving alleged perjury, drone operations in North Korea and unrelated abuse-of-power charges — are proceeding more slowly on parallel tracks.

Together, prosecutors argue, the cases show that the former president attempted to use the powers of his office to undermine democracy itself.

Special Counsel Cho Eun-suk announces the results of his team's investigation into former President Yoon Suk Yeol's declaration of emergency martial law at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on Dec. 15, 2025. [KIM KYUNG-ROK]

Who is in charge of prosecuting Yoon?

Unlike most criminal cases, which are handled by the state prosecution service, most cases involving Yoon are handled by a special counsel team, an investigative mechanism in South Korea reserved for politically sensitive cases. Efforts to establish a special counsel team were repeatedly blocked by Yoon’s deputies during his prolonged impeachment. The requisite legislation was enacted only after President Lee Jae Myung was elected in June last year.

The law granted the special counsel broad powers, including the authority to investigate senior officials, to apply directly to courts for arrest and search warrants, and to file indictments without approval from the prosecutor general. Its mandate covered not only Yoon’s declaration of martial law, but also related conduct before and after it, such as alleged obstruction of investigators, destruction of evidence and interference with Cabinet deliberations.

Cho Eun-suk, a veteran prosecutor who was appointed special counsel in June, began his work after Yoon had already been indicted on insurrection charges. Rather than reopening that case, Cho’s office took over its prosecution while also pursuing new inquiries into Yoon’s conduct before and after his impeachment.

That approach led to a second indictment in July on obstruction and abuse-of-power charges. By keeping those allegations separate from the insurrection case, the special counsel created the multiple-track structure that now defines Yoon’s criminal proceedings. The obstruction case, narrower and less complex, moved more quickly and is now the first of Yoon’s cases expected to reach judgment.

The special counsel’s charging decisions also affected how courts handled other defendants. Because senior military and police officials were indicted under a shared theory of responsibility, judges ordered that the insurrection-related cases be merged for trial. That decision placed Yoon at the center of a single proceeding examining the full chain of command behind the martial law attempt.

Around mid-December last year, the special counsel ended its investigative work and shifted into a litigation-only role. It now functions as a dedicated prosecution team, handling four of Yoon’s seven trials and seeking sentences in court.

Martial law forces withdraw from the area surrounding the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Dec. 4, 2024. [CHOI GI-UNG]

What is Yoon’s insurrection trial about?

The central case against Yoon revolved around his sudden invocation of emergency martial law amid a prolonged political standoff with the National Assembly, controlled by the liberal Democratic Party. Prosecutors argue the move was not a response to any imminent national crisis, but an effort to suppress independent branches of government that had blocked his agenda.

On Jan. 26 last year, prosecutors indicted Yoon on charges of leading an insurrection. Under South Korean criminal law, the offense applies when a person uses or attempts to use organized force to disrupt the constitutional order. It is among the most serious crimes in the legal system, punishable by life imprisonment or, in theory, the death penalty, though South Korea has not carried out executions since 1997.

Prosecutors argue that the charge does not require bloodshed. In court filings, they say Yoon authorized the deployment of military and police units in ways that would have restricted access to the legislature and asserted executive control over constitutionally independent bodies such as the National Election Commission. They contend that the plan’s rapid collapse — largely due to resistance from lawmakers — does not erase its intent.

Yoon’s defense rejects that view, describing the episode as a political crisis rather than an attempt to overthrow the constitutional system. His lawyers argue that he never intended to suspend democratic rule permanently and emphasize that no sustained violence occurred.

The insurrection trial began on April 14 last year and later expanded into a merged proceeding involving several senior officials. The case is being heard by the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 25, presided over by Chief Judge Ji Gui-yeon. Closing arguments are expected this month, with a first-instance verdict anticipated in mid-February. It is the most serious case Yoon faces, but not the first to be decided.

Members of the Presidential Security Service block investigators from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials from approaching the presidential residence in Yongsan District, central Seoul, on Jan. 3, 2025. [NEWS1]

Why does Yoon face separate obstruction-of-justice charges?

Running alongside the insurrection case is a second trial focused on Yoon’s conduct during and after efforts to detain him in January last year.

Prosecutors allege that Yoon, with help from senior PSS officials, authorized physical obstruction to prevent investigators from executing a court-approved arrest warrant on Jan. 3 last year. They also accuse him of ordering the destruction of records, drafting and discarding a false martial law proclamation and interfering with Cabinet deliberations. Those allegations led to his arrest and to a separate obstruction indictment in July.

As the obstruction case involves fewer defendants and a narrower set of facts, it has also moved faster than the others. The case is being handled by the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 35, led by Chief Judge Baek Dae-hyun.

On Dec. 26 last year, Cho asked the court to sentence Yoon to 10 years in prison, arguing that his actions represented an unprecedented challenge to judicial authority.

What are the other five trials involving Yoon?

Beyond the insurrection and obstruction cases, Yoon faces five additional trials that reflect the breadth of controversy surrounding his presidency and its aftermath. Two were brought by the same special counsel team overseeing the martial law investigation, while three were filed by the regular prosecution service and involve separate allegations.

One case spearheaded by the special counsel centers on claims that Yoon authorized the deployment of drones into Pyongyang ahead of the martial law declaration. Prosecutors argue the operation was meant to provoke North Korea and create a security pretext for emergency rule. The Seoul Central District Court issued an additional arrest warrant for Yoon on Jan. 2, extending his detention.

Another special-counsel case accuses Yoon of perjury in connection with the trial of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. Prosecutors allege Yoon falsely testified about whether Han urged him to convene a Cabinet meeting before declaring martial law.

The remaining three trials were filed by the regular prosecution service. One concerns allegations that Yoon interfered in a military investigation into the death of Marine Corporal Chae Su-geun during flood rescue operations in July 2023. Another focuses on claims that Yoon helped former Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup leave the country by appointing him ambassador to Australia amid a corruption investigation. The final case concerns allegations that Yoon illegally obtained opinion polling data during his presidential campaign, in violation of political finance laws.

All three are moving on slower timelines and are not expected to reach verdicts soon.

When are judgments due?

Among Yoon’s seven trials, the Seoul Central District Court is expected to rule first on the obstruction-of-justice case, with a verdict scheduled for Jan. 16.

The merged insurrection trial is expected to conclude weeks later, with a first-instance verdict anticipated in mid-February. The remaining cases against Yoon are proceeding more slowly and are unlikely to produce judgments in the near term.

According to the JoongAng Ilbo, Special Counsel Cho has been weighing whether to seek the death penalty or life imprisonment for Yoon, a decision that underscores the gravity prosecutors attach to the case. The closest parallel to Yoon’s case is the 1996 prosecution of former President Chun Doo Hwan, who was sentenced to death — but later pardoned — for ordering the massacre of pro-democracy protesters in May 1980. While no civilians were killed during Yoon’s Dec. 3 declaration, the special counsel has argued that the episode posed a profound threat to South Korea’s constitutional order and had the potential to reverse decades of democratic development.

Prosecutors have also cited Yoon’s conduct during the investigation as an aggravating factor. After being arrested in July, Yoon refused all summonses by the special counsel and did not appear in court for several months, forcing prosecutors to indict him without a single interrogation.

For South Korea, a country that has been confronted with major political controversies over abuses of presidential powers, the trials of Yoon Suk Yeol are about more than one man’s legal fate. They amount to a test of whether democratic institutions, once challenged from the highest office, can ultimately reassert themselves through the courts.

BY MICHAEL LEE [[email protected]]