An independent counsel on Friday sought a 10-year prison sentence for South Korea’s ousted president Yoon Suk Yeol in the first of several criminal cases arising from his controversial attempt to impose martial law in 2024 and other alleged abuses of power during his presidency. This case is the first of seven legal proceedings facing Yoon, marking a critical moment in the unraveling of his political career.
The trial that has now concluded centres on charges that Yoon obstructed official investigations and defied attempts by authorities to detain him. Yoon has denied all allegations, with his legal team arguing that the warrant issued for his detention was unlawful and therefore invalid. The court is expected to deliver its verdict as early as next month, a decision that could significantly shape the course of his remaining trials.
Beyond this case, Yoon is facing multiple other prosecutions, including charges of corruption, abuse of authority, and favouritism. The most serious among them is a charge of rebellion, which carries the possibility of life imprisonment or even the death penalty under South Korean law. Proceedings in the rebellion case are also nearing completion, adding to the mounting legal pressure on the former president.
Yoon’s downfall began with his short-lived declaration of martial law, a move that shocked the nation and plunged South Korea into its most serious political crisis in decades. Armed troops were deployed on the streets of Seoul, triggering widespread outrage. The declaration lasted only hours, as lawmakers forced their way into the National Assembly and voted to overturn the order. In December 2024, Yoon was impeached by the opposition-controlled parliament and was formally removed from office following a Constitutional Court ruling in April.
During Friday’s hearing, prosecutors from the independent counsel’s office urged the Seoul Central District Court to impose a decade-long prison sentence on Yoon. They accused him of obstructing official duties, abusing his authority, falsifying government documents, and destroying evidence related to the martial law episode. Investigators said Yoon deliberately resisted arrest for weeks after his impeachment, barricading himself inside his residence and using presidential security personnel to block law enforcement, raising fears of violent confrontation and further polarising the nation.
Senior investigator Park Eok-su described Yoon’s conduct as unprecedented, saying it represented a serious and deliberate attempt to undermine the rule of law. Prosecutors also alleged that Yoon bypassed constitutional requirements by declaring martial law without convening a full Cabinet meeting, fabricated official records including the proclamation itself, and ordered the deletion of digital data tied to those involved in the operation.
Yoon has continued to reject all accusations, maintaining that his actions were intended to rally public support against what he described as obstruction by the opposition Democratic Party. He claimed that the party had repeatedly blocked his legislative agenda and impeached senior officials, leaving him with no alternative but to act decisively.
According to findings released by the independent counsel last week, Yoon had been preparing for the declaration of martial law for over a year, allegedly with the goal of sidelining political opponents and consolidating power. Investigators said the planning was systematic and extended well beyond a momentary political decision.
In addition to the current case, Yoon faces several other serious allegations, including ordering drone operations near North Korea to provoke tensions and justify emergency measures, committing perjury during the trial of his former prime minister, interfering in an investigation into a marine’s death in 2023, and receiving illegal benefits in the form of opinion polls from a political broker. Yoon has denied all these accusations, claiming he had no knowledge of the drone operations and rejecting any suggestion of corruption or influence-peddling.
As South Korea awaits the court’s ruling, the case continues to dominate national discourse, symbolising a dramatic fall from power and raising profound questions about constitutional authority, accountability, and the limits of executive power in the country’s democracy.
