Death penalty sought for former President Yoon, a stark warning against democratic backsliding

Home > Opinion > Editorials

Death penalty sought for former President Yoon, a stark warning against democratic backsliding

Published: 15 Jan. 2026, 00:00 Updated: 15 Jan. 2026, 09:33

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Former president Yoon Suk Yeol sits in the courtroom during the first-instance sentencing hearing on charges of leading an insurrection at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho District, Seoul, on Jan. 9. [CAPTURED FROM VIDEO PROVIDED BY SEOUL CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT]

At a sentencing hearing on an insurrection case held on Jan. 13 at the Seoul Central District Court, prosecutors sought the death penalty for former president Yoon Suk Yeol, the maximum punishment under Korean law. The case was heard by the court’s Criminal Division 25, presided over by Ji Gui-yeon. The charge of leading an insurrection carries only three possible sentences: death, life imprisonment or life imprisonment without parole. That a president elected by popular vote now faces a demand for capital punishment for allegedly dismantling the constitutional order is a grave moment for Korea’s democracy.

Although Korea has not carried out an execution for decades, the special prosecutors’ decision to seek the death penalty carries weight. The team led by Cho Eun-seok said the Dec. 3, 2024, declaration of emergency martial law constituted a serious breach of the Constitution and that the defendant had directed the plot from planning through execution. Prosecutors argued that the case required the harshest possible punishment, citing the country’s past reckoning with military leaders Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae-woo and warning against a repeat of that tragic history. They added that there were no mitigating factors warranting leniency.

Yoon’s legal team rejected the accusation, arguing that there was no intent to subvert the constitutional order and that the declaration of martial law was a legitimate act beyond judicial review. Under the Criminal Act, insurrection requires an uprising aimed at excluding state authority or disrupting the constitutional order in all or part of the nation’s territory. Whether the Dec. 3, 2024, martial law meets that definition is for the court to decide. Even so, the responsibility cannot be taken lightly when an elected president mobilizes the military beyond the limits of constitutional checks and balances.

Particularly troubling was the deployment of troops to the National Election Commission under the pretext of investigating alleged election fraud. That act was unconstitutional, a point already made clear by the Constitutional Court of Korea in its impeachment ruling. Denials by Yoon’s camp and claims that the move was an “enlightenment decree” amount to sophistry.

Yoon’s conduct during the trial has also drawn criticism. He appeared selectively in court and sought to shift responsibility onto military commanders who carried out his orders. While he expressed regret to senior officers when testifying at a military court last December, he never apologized for declaring martial law itself, insisting instead that it was a warning to a legislature he said had paralyzed governance.

The Dec. 3, 2024, martial law was anachronistic and imposed high social costs, deepening divisions and undermining international confidence in Korea’s democracy. Whether the court ultimately imposes the death penalty is a judicial decision. Still, the prosecution’s demand should serve as a reminder that no elected authority should again wield military power to shake the foundations of democratic order. Former president Yoon, for his part, should stop evading responsibility and offer a sincere apology and reflection as a final duty to the public.

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.