In brief
At the Seoul High Court, special counsel Cho Eun‑suk’s team requested the death penalty for former President Yoon Suk‑Yeol on Thursday, after an earlier lower‑court life sentence. The request re‑raises the insurrection charges linked to Yoon’s brief martial‑law declaration that tried to curb opposition forces. The Seoul High Court will hold two additional hearings before setting a sentencing date.
A special counsel team at the Seoul High Court demanded the death penalty for former President Yoon Suk‑Yeol on Thursday, re‑raising the verdict over the December 2024 martial‑law declaration that sparked an insurrection charge.
Yoon declared martial law on the night of Dec. 3, 2024, claiming it was needed to “eradicate anti‑state forces” and to warn a parliament that had repeatedly impeached senior officials and cut the state budget. The decree was lifted six hours later after a vote by the National Assembly, but during that brief period troops were deployed to the National Assembly compound, a move the lower court ruled in February was an attempt to paralyze parliament and arrest key politicians.
Yoon was indicted in January 2025 under detention as a suspected ringleader of insurrection, and the Constitutional Court removed him from office following an official impeachment motion in April 2025. In February 2025 a first‑instance court sentenced Yoon to life imprisonment for staging a riot through his declaration of martial law. The special counsel has now asked the appellate court to increase the sentence to death.
Special Counsel’s Request
During proceedings at the Seoul High Court, the team led by independent counsel Cho Eun‑suk reiterated its original demand. “There is no reason to hesitate to hand down the death penalty,” a member of the team said. “The strongest argument for objection to the death penalty is the possibility of a misjudgment just in case, but in this case, there is no room for that.”
“The commander in chief who had sworn to abide by the Constitution instead sent troops armed with guns pointing at the people. This was an unforgivable crime that destroyed the constitutional order and tried to turn back the clock of the Republic of Korea by 40 years.”
The special counsel argued that Yoon’s presidential decree was “unconstitutional, illegal and unprecedented,” and that the lower court’s life sentence was too lenient. Under criminal law, a ringleader of an insurrection can only be sentenced to either capital punishment or life imprisonment.
For many South Koreans, the trial is more than a criminal proceeding; it is a test of the nation’s democratic institutions. A brief martial‑law declaration from a former president challenged the balance of power between the executive and the National Assembly, a core pillar of South Korea’s republican government. The National Assembly’s swift revocation of the order, and Yoon’s subsequent removal, reflected a decisive institutional check on executive overreach. The appellate trial raises questions about accountability, the rule of law, and whether the judiciary can impose the ultimate penalty for a breach of constitutional order.
The Seoul High Court will hold two additional hearings before setting a sentencing date, and Yoon is scheduled to deliver a final statement next Thursday. The court’s decision will ultimately determine whether the country will hand the former president a death sentence or uphold the life term given by the lower court.
Amnesty International has noted that South Korea, while formally retaining the death penalty in law, has not carried it out since December 1997, designating the country as a de‑facto abolitionist. The special counsel’s request, therefore, invokes a form of punishment that has long been absent from Korean courts, renewing debate over the death penalty’s place in a modern democratic society. The outcome will have implications for public confidence in the rule of law, the integrity of democratic institutions, and the accountability of those in power to their citizens.
