South Korean prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for former President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived declaration of martial law in December 2024, marking an extraordinary turn in one of the country’s most dramatic political crises in decades.
Special prosecutor Cho Eun-suk made the request during a 17-hour closing hearing that began Tuesday, January 13, at the Seoul Central District Court. The prosecutors accused Yoon of leading an insurrection and argued that his actions posed a grave threat to South Korea’s constitutional order, warranting the maximum punishment allowed under the country’s legal system.
Yoon, 65 years old, has been charged with insurrection for declaring martial law on December 3, 2024. The decree lasted only six hours before lawmakers voted it down, but the political fallout proved devastating for the conservative leader. He was impeached and subsequently removed from office. Yoon was arrested and remains in custody while facing eight separate trials over various criminal charges stemming from his presidency.
Prosecutors said Yoon showed no remorse for his actions during the hearings. “The fact that prosecutors sought the death penalty may be because former President Yoon continues to maintain that his actions were justified and has shown no remorse or acknowledgment of wrongdoing,” according to accounts of the proceedings.
During his 90-minute closing statement, Yoon defended his martial law declaration and attacked the prosecution’s case. He said he was protecting democracy from what he viewed as threats posed by the opposition Democratic Party, which had used its legislative majority to block his political agenda. The former president maintained that his use of emergency presidential powers cannot be treated as rebellion under the law.
The martial law episode sent shockwaves through South Korea when Yoon deployed soldiers to seize control of Parliament. The move was met with immediate resistance from lawmakers and widespread public outcry. Citizens took to the streets in protest as the nation grappled with the prospect of military rule for the first time since the country’s democratization.
Moon Geum-ju of the Democratic Party welcomed the prosecution’s recommendation, arguing that “calling for the death penalty for Yoon is not a matter of choice but a necessity and cannot be considered excessive.”
By contrast, lawmakers from Yoon’s conservative People Power Party have largely distanced themselves from the embattled former president. Jang Dong-hyuk declined to issue an official statement on the case, telling reporters that the sentencing request was not an issue he should comment on. He added that he expects the court to conduct a fair trial.
Yoon’s case carries echoes of South Korea’s political history. Two former presidents, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, were convicted of insurrection in the 1990s for their roles in a 1979 military coup and the subsequent crackdown in 1980. Prosecutors at the time sought the death penalty for Chun and a life sentence for Roh.
Chun was initially sentenced to death, though the sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. Roh received 17 years in prison. Both former leaders served approximately two years before being released following a presidential pardon in December 1997, which the government justified as necessary for national reconciliation.
Despite the prosecution’s request, legal experts say an actual execution remains highly unlikely. South Korea has not carried out a death sentence in nearly 30 years, maintaining what human rights observers consider a de facto moratorium on capital punishment. The country last executed a prisoner in 1997.
Amnesty International condemned the prosecution’s recommendation as inconsistent with human rights principles. Chiara Sangiorgio of the organization said the death penalty is a step backward and has no place in a justice system that claims to respect human rights.
Seven former military and police officials are being tried alongside Yoon for their alleged roles in implementing the martial law order. The trial has focused on allegations that Yoon and his co-defendants attempted to forcibly suspend the National Assembly’s functions while planning to arrest political opponents and blockade critical media outlets.
The insurrection case represents just one of multiple legal battles facing Yoon. Among the other charges he confronts are allegations of ordering drone flights over North Korea to escalate tensions and justify his martial law declaration, as well as attempting to manipulate an investigation into a South Korean marine’s drowning. Yoon has denied all charges leveled against him.
The Seoul Central District Court is scheduled to deliver its verdict on February 19, 2026. Legal observers anticipate the court may impose a life sentence rather than uphold any death penalty recommendation, following the pattern established in previous cases involving former presidents.
South Korea’s criminal code specifies three possible penalties for insurrection ringleaders: death, life imprisonment with labor, or life imprisonment without labor. Even if the court initially hands down a death sentence, historical precedent suggests it would likely be commuted through appeals or a presidential pardon.
The case continues to generate intense political debate in South Korea about presidential power and democratic safeguards. The current administration has suggested reforms to check executive authority, including restricting presidential power and tightening the country’s martial law legislation.
Yoon’s brief martial law declaration in 2024 represented one of the most serious challenges to South Korean democracy since the country’s transition from military rule. The episode tested the resilience of democratic institutions as lawmakers, protesters, and civil society mobilized rapidly to reject authoritarian measures.
The former president’s supporters remain vocal despite his dwindling political base, with some demonstrating outside the courthouse during proceedings. The trial has deepened political divisions in South Korea, with observers warning that tensions may persist regardless of the verdict.
