South Korea Ex-President Faces Death Penalty in Insurrection Trial

Published: 19 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Seoul is bracing for a landmark courtroom decision as former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol stands on the brink of a verdict in a historic insurrection trial that could see him sentenced to the death penalty or life imprisonment for his role in a failed attempt to impose martial law in December 2024. The Seoul Central District Court’s ruling, expected today, marks a defining moment in South Korea’s democratic evolution and reflects deep national divisions after one of the most turbulent political episodes in recent history.

Yoon, 65, who was impeached and ousted from office following the controversial martial law declaration, has pleaded not guilty, insisting that his actions were lawful uses of presidential authority aimed at resolving legislative gridlock. However, prosecutors have portrayed his decision to mobilise troops and police to encircle the National Assembly and attempt to suppress opposition lawmakers as an unconstitutional power grab amounting to insurrection — a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment under South Korean law.

The trial stems from the dramatic events of 3 December 2024, when Yoon announced the imposition of martial law in a televised address. He argued that political deadlock and repeated parliamentary obstruction threatened national stability. Within hours, thousands of outraged citizens rallied outside the legislature, and lawmakers pushed back against his decree, eventually forcing its cancellation. The episode triggered widespread protests and plunged the country into political crisis, ultimately leading to Yoon’s impeachment and removal.

In the current trial, special prosecutors have asked the court to impose the death penalty, describing Yoon’s actions as the “most serious threat to constitutional order” since the nation’s democratic transition. Their argument emphasises that allowing a president to deploy military force against democratic institutions could set a dangerous precedent, undermining hard-won civil liberties in a country that has not executed anyone since 1997.

Yoon’s defence team has countered these claims, asserting that the martial law decree did not amount to rebellion and that his use of emergency powers was intended to protect governance amid partisan deadlock. The former president has repeatedly denied improper intent, framing his actions as a constitutional effort rather than an attempt to seize power.

Beyond Yoon himself, several high-ranking officials tied to the martial law bid also face sentences. Trials for allies such as the former defence minister and former national police chief are being decided alongside Yoon’s, with preliminary rulings already handed down in related cases. Independent courts have characterised actions during the martial law period as aimed at subverting constitutional governance, reinforcing prosecutors’ legal arguments.

This insurrection case echoes South Korea’s earlier democratic struggles. In the mid-1990s, former military ruler Chun Doo-hwan was initially sentenced to death for coup-related crimes before his sentence was commuted and he was eventually pardoned, marking a powerful assertion of democratic accountability. Similarly, the outcome of Yoon’s trial is being watched closely both domestically and internationally as a potential barometer of South Korea’s commitment to the rule of law and civilian control over the military.

Public opinion remains sharply divided. Recent polls indicate a significant portion of the population expects Yoon to receive either a life sentence or the death penalty if convicted of insurrection, reflecting ongoing debates about justice, accountability, and the balance between national security and democratic freedoms.

While legal experts note that a death sentence would be largely symbolic due to the country’s long moratorium on executions, an outright conviction — especially with the nation’s highest permissible punishment — would send a resounding message about democratic norms in South Korea. The court’s decision will undoubtedly resonate across the political landscape, influencing public trust in institutions and shaping the future of political discourse in East Asia’s vibrant democracy.

Read More At>>