Home > Opinion > Editorials

Yoon verdict reaffirms importance of Constitutional order

Published: 20 Feb. 2026, 00:02

Office workers watch a live television broadcast of former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s first trial verdict on charges including leading an insurrection at an office in Dalseo District, Daegu, on Feb. 19. [NEWS1]

The Seoul Central District Court on Thursday sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to life imprisonment in his first-trial ruling, bringing to a close — for now — the judiciary’s judgment on the Dec. 3 martial law declaration. Following earlier rulings that convicted former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min of insurrection, the court’s heavy sentence for Yoon as ringleader makes clear its conclusion that the declaration of martial law and the occupation of the National Assembly constituted an insurrection that denied the core values of democracy. The verdict reminds us how grave the constitutional order we have long taken for granted truly is.

Yoon’s legal team protested that the ruling “ignored the president’s decision to set right a nation in crisis,” yet the court’s reasoning — that disabling constitutional institutions constitutes an act that subverts the Constitution — aligns far more closely with ordinary public common sense. The decision can also be seen as a guilty verdict delivered one year and three months after the fact to a perpetrator whom most citizens witnessed in real time. Presiding Judge Ji Gwi-yeon twice emphasized that “the core of this case is that troops were sent to the National Assembly,” underscoring that even a sitting president cannot escape severe punishment if he recklessly damages the operating principles of a democratic republic.

The court rejected most of Yoon’s defenses. Citing the execution of King Charles I of England for treason in 1649, it noted that “a president, too, can commit insurrection for the purpose of subverting the constitutional order.” It dismissed Yoon’s claim that the decree was merely a “warning-and-appeal-type martial law” meant to overcome a crisis created by an “anti-state” National Assembly, calling it a confusion of justification and purpose. As for his assertion that no violence occurred, the court found that the proclamation, the blockade of the Assembly, the formation and deployment of arrest teams and the seizure of the National Election Commission and removal of its servers “constituted riotous acts in themselves.” The bench also rejected Yoon’s sophistry that it was only a “three-hour martial law,” noting he had never set a timetable for withdrawing the troops. Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun and former intelligence commander Noh Sang-won received sentences of 30 and 18 years for performing key roles in the insurrection. Former National Police Agency chief Cho Ji-ho and former Seoul police chief Kim Bong-sik were sentenced to 12 and 10 years, respectively. Former Col. Kim Yong-gun and former investigation planning coordinator Yoon Seung-young were acquitted, the court finding insufficient grounds to conclude they took part in the insurrection.

In explaining its sentencing rationale, the court itemized the social damage caused — points that both Yoon and the People Power Party should heed. Judge Ji said that the declaration of martial law and subsequent military and police actions “severely undermined the political neutrality of the armed forces and police, lowered Korea’s political standing and international credibility, and ultimately left our society politically divided and locked in extreme confrontation.” Citing the snap presidential election as well as massive investigations and trials, he added that “these social costs amount to incalculable damage.” The bench’s observation that soldiers, police officers and civil servants became targets of public blame and that trust in the legality and legitimacy of superiors’ orders was shaken is something the governing camp — now focused on rooting out past wrongs through a constitutional-defense task force after the launch of a new administration — should reflect on.

The court chose life imprisonment rather than the statutory maximum of death after weighing factors such as the absence of a meticulously premeditated plan, circumstances suggesting an attempt to restrain the use of force, the difficulty of finding instances of actual violence, and Yoon’s relatively advanced age. Although he shifted responsibility onto subordinates during the trial, it was in effect the restraint of rank-and-file troops on the ground that spared him the harshest penalty.

Yoon and political leaders across both ruling and opposition parties should accept the verdict, delivered one year and three months after the martial law declaration, with humility and turn their attention to ensuring that the constitutional order is never again damaged. His lawyers' claim that the judiciary "has knelt before political power seeking to purge an enemy” appears aimed at rallying hard-line supporters.

The People Power Party should use this ruling as an opportunity to sever ties with Yoon and rebuild itself as a conservative force aligned with public common sense, expanding its appeal. It must not ignore younger party members calling for an official break with pro-Yoon forces and corresponding action. The Democratic Party, for its part, also responded shortsightedly by expressing regret that the death penalty was not imposed and asserting that the ruling “once again shows how far apart the people and the judiciary are.” Rather than leading partisan attacks on the courts, it should demonstrate concern first for the citizens who were the greatest victims of the martial law crisis.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.