Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty for Yoon Over South Korea's Martial Law Crisis

Former president faces the most severe sentence

South Korean prosecutors have asked the Seoul Central District Court to sentence former President Yoon Suk Yeol to death for allegedly leading an insurrection through his December 3, 2024, declaration of martial law. The court is due to deliver its verdict on February 19, following a trial over a military deployment that brought troops to parliament and plunged the country into political turmoil.

In closing arguments, the special counsel team accused Yoon of using the presidency to try to seize control of the legislature and judiciary and extend his hold on power. Prosecutors argued that there were no legal grounds for martial law and that deploying the military against democratic institutions amounted to an attack on the constitutional order.

Yoon has pleaded not guilty. He maintains that the declaration fell within his constitutional powers and was meant to warn his political opponents, rather than overthrow the democratic system. During the reading of the sentencing request, he showed little visible reaction beyond a faint smile, while some supporters in the courtroom gallery responded with angry outbursts.

The prosecution's demand is a request to the judges, who will decide whether Yoon is guilty and, if so, what punishment to impose. Under South Korean law, leading an insurrection carries three possible sentences: death, life imprisonment with labor, or life imprisonment without labor.

South Korea has carried out no executions since December 1997. Capital punishment remains available under the law, however, giving the request both legal weight and considerable symbolic force. The case places an ousted president at the center of one of the country's most serious political and legal crises in decades.

Six hours that shook the country

Yoon announced emergency martial law in a televised address on the night of December 3, 2024. He said the measure was needed to protect South Korea from North Korean communist forces and remove "anti state" elements that he accused of paralyzing the government.

Military units were sent to key sites in Seoul, including the National Assembly. Soldiers surrounded the parliament building and attempted to prevent lawmakers from entering to vote against the decree. Citizens gathered outside, blocked military vehicles and clashed with special operations forces, in scenes that recalled South Korea's authoritarian past.

Inside the assembly, 190 lawmakers managed to get through the military cordons and reach the parliamentary chamber. They voted unanimously to lift martial law, forcing Yoon to withdraw the decree. Parliamentary resistance and the public response ended the immediate crisis after about six hours.

Trial testimony described a deployment extending beyond parliament. Prosecutors said Yoon ordered the arrests of leading political figures, including the National Assembly speaker and the leader of the opposition Democratic Party. Troops also went to the National Election Commission, an independent body, to collect evidence of alleged voting fraud. Prosecutors described that operation as an attempt to undermine the country's electoral integrity.

The end of martial law did not end the confrontation over Yoon's presidency. Opposition lawmakers moved quickly to impeach him. He was suspended from office and later removed by the Constitutional Court in April 2025. A snap presidential election then brought his rival, Lee Jae Myung, to power.

How the crisis reached the courtroom

Yoon became the first sitting South Korean president to be arrested and indicted. His removal from office and the criminal proceedings placed separate questions before the country's courts: whether he could remain president, and whether his actions amounted to crimes carrying a prison sentence or death.

The main events stretch from the martial law declaration in December 2024 to the sentencing request in January 2026:

• December 3, 2024: Yoon declared emergency martial law, and troops were deployed to parliament and other locations.
• About six hours later: The decree ended after 190 lawmakers unanimously voted to lift it.
• After the declaration: Opposition lawmakers moved to impeach Yoon, and he was suspended from office.
• April 2025: The Constitutional Court formally removed Yoon from the presidency.
• After his removal: A snap election brought Lee Jae Myung to the presidency.
• January 13, 2026: Prosecutors requested the death penalty in the insurrection case.
• February 19: The Seoul Central District Court is scheduled to deliver its verdict.

Yoon has retained influence among a section of the population despite losing office. Some supporters on the right regard him as a martyr confronting a liberal establishment. Their loyalty has kept the former president at the center of a political struggle while the criminal case proceeds.

Prosecutors describe a plan to hold power

The special counsel team argued that martial law was the result of preparation, rather than a sudden response to an emergency. Prosecutors told the court that Yoon and his allies began planning the operation as early as October 2023, more than a year before the declaration.

According to the prosecution, the objective was to "monopolize power through long term rule" by placing military personnel in strategically important positions. Their case connects those alleged preparations with the deployment of troops, the effort to prevent parliament from acting and the alleged orders to arrest political leaders.

Assistant special counsel Park Eok-su told the court that Yoon's purpose was to capture institutions that could limit presidential power. He also accused the former president of misusing resources intended to serve the country.

Former President Yoon declared martial law with the purpose of remaining in power for a long time by seizing the judiciary and legislature," Park stated. "The nature of the crime is serious as he mobilized physical resources that should have been used only in the interest of the national collective.

Prosecutors argued that the operation was violent in its intent even though nobody was killed during its implementation. They said Yoon's authorization of force to achieve political goals made his intention no less violent than that behind earlier military coups.

A military commander testified that Yoon explicitly ordered the arrest of lawmakers. That testimony directly challenged the former president's position that troops were deployed merely to maintain order. The competing accounts put the purpose of the military operation at the heart of the case.

A memo, media restrictions and election allegations

Prosecutors presented a memo attributed to one of the martial law planners containing suggestions for "disposing" of hundreds of people. Those named included journalists, labor activists and lawmakers. The prosecution treated the document as evidence of an effort reaching far beyond a temporary emergency declaration.

The special counsel team also referred to plans to cut electricity and water to critical media outlets and to torture election officials into confessing to fabricated election fraud. Prosecutors used those allegations to argue that the operation was intended to dismantle democratic institutions and suppress people who might resist it.

The deployment to the National Election Commission formed another part of that argument. An institution responsible for elections became a target of troops seeking evidence of alleged fraud, while parliament faced military restrictions on its ability to meet and vote.

Yoon's conduct after his arrest was another factor prosecutors cited in seeking the harshest sentence. They said he had shown no genuine remorse and had failed to apologize to the public for the turmoil. Instead, they accused him of continuing to blame the opposition and incite his supporters.

Some supporters took part in violent protests outside the courthouse after his detention. Prosecutors pointed to that unrest as part of their argument about his behavior since arrest, alongside the actions alleged to have occurred during martial law.

Yoon says martial law was a political warning

Yoon's defense rests on a sharply different explanation of the same night. He argues that a president's declaration of martial law cannot legally constitute rebellion. His lawyers have described the proceedings as a politically motivated "purge" and an abuse of prosecutorial power.

In a final statement lasting 90 minutes, Yoon said his purpose was to revive the constitutional order and "safeguard freedom and sovereignty." He described the parliament controlled by the opposition as a "den of criminals" and accused "anti state forces" of obstructing his administration's ability to govern.

The former president called his declaration "message martial law," presenting it as a peaceful and symbolic warning. He said he knew it would be lifted within half a day and denied intending to paralyze the country or arrest political leaders. His stated aim was to draw public attention to what he considered dangerous conduct by the Democratic Party.

Yoon told the court that he regarded the declaration as a defense of the country, rather than an attempt to establish military rule.

It was not a military dictatorship that suppresses citizens, but an effort to safeguard freedom and sovereignty," Yoon told the court. "I had done so to fend off the wickedness that would ruin the nation.

On the allegation that he ordered troops to drag lawmakers out of the assembly, Yoon blamed military subordinates. He suggested that soldiers exceeded their instructions because their training relied on outdated, aggressive martial law guidelines.

Prosecutors and legal observers questioned that explanation, noting that the president sits at the top of the military chain of command. The court must weigh Yoon's account against testimony and evidence about the instructions given and the actions taken.

Senior military and police figures also face sentences

Yoon's insurrection proceedings have been merged with the trials of several senior figures from his administration accused of carrying out illegal orders. Prosecutors presented the alleged operation as one requiring cooperation across military and police leadership.

Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun faces a prosecution request for life imprisonment. Prosecutors said he had "moved as one body" with Yoon throughout the alleged conspiracy and played a central role in coordinating and executing the martial law operation.

Former National Police Agency chief Cho Ji-ho faces a requested sentence of 20 years. He is accused of helping deploy police to block the National Assembly. Prosecutors also requested 15 years for former Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency chief Kim Bong-sik.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Noh Sang-won, a former commander of the Defense Intelligence Command, faces a requested sentence of 30 years. The sentencing demands against these defendants show the breadth of the prosecution's case, which extends from presidential decision making to the officials accused of organizing and enforcing the operation.

Yoon is undergoing eight separate criminal trials. Beyond insurrection, the charges include abuse of power, obstruction of justice and election law violations. The February judgment in the insurrection case therefore forms only part of his legal troubles.

In another case, prosecutors allege that Yoon ordered military drones to fly over North Korea in 2024 to provoke a crisis that could provide a pretext for martial law. That allegation concerns the claimed preparation of an emergency, while the insurrection trial examines the declaration and the deployment that followed.

Why a death sentence carries historical weight

South Korea last faced a comparable prosecution of former leaders in the 1990s, when former military dictators Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were tried over their roles in a 1979 coup and the violent suppression of the movement for democracy in Gwangju.

Prosecutors also sought the death penalty for Chun. He initially received a death sentence, but an appeals court reduced it to life imprisonment. Both Chun and Roh were eventually pardoned and released after serving about two years in prison.

That history has led many legal experts to predict that a death sentence for Yoon, if imposed, would be unlikely to be carried out and might eventually be reduced. The precedent includes both judicial reduction of a sentence and later political decisions to grant pardons.

South Korea's last death sentence was handed down in 2016, while its last execution took place in December 1997. Amnesty International classifies the country as "abolitionist in practice," meaning it retains the death penalty in law but has stopped carrying out executions.

The longstanding moratorium makes imprisonment the likely practical outcome if Yoon is convicted and receives a death sentence. The punishment sought by prosecutors nevertheless conveys their view that his alleged offense deserves the strongest condemnation available under the law.

Yoon's downfall also fits a wider pattern of former South Korean presidents leaving office amid scandal or later going to prison. That recurring experience has sometimes been called the "curse of the Blue House." His arrest and indictment while still president marked a new point in that troubled history.

A February verdict amid political division

The Seoul Central District Court has set February 19 for its verdict. Until then, the death penalty remains the sentence requested by prosecutors, with Yoon continuing to deny that he led an insurrection.

President Lee Jae Myung's government has kept its distance from the proceedings. Its stated position is that the judiciary will rule according to the law and public standards. The case places the courts under scrutiny as they decide whether, and how, to hold a former head of state criminally responsible.

Public opinion remains deeply divided. Many citizens were horrified by the declaration and support accountability, while Yoon's loyal supporters regard the trial as a witch hunt. Frequent protests in Seoul have sometimes turned violent as opposing groups clash over the country's direction.

The December 2024 crisis showed how quickly democratic institutions could face military pressure, even in a country with an established democratic system. Parliament's vote ended the decree within hours, but the criminal proceedings now address the decisions and orders that brought soldiers to its doors.

The judgment could close part of a turbulent chapter or trigger further unrest, depending on the outcome. It will also carry consequences for South Korea's domestic politics and international standing. Yoon's removal, arrest and prosecution have already changed the presidency's place in political life by showing that its occupant can face the country's most serious criminal charges.

The Essentials

• Prosecutors requested the death penalty for Yoon Suk Yeol on January 13, 2026, accusing him of leading an insurrection.
• The case concerns martial law declared on December 3, 2024, which ended about six hours later after 190 lawmakers unanimously voted to lift it.
• Prosecutors allege preparations began in October 2023 and included plans to arrest political figures and seize control of democratic institutions.
• Yoon denies the charges and says his declaration was a symbolic political warning within his presidential powers.
• The Constitutional Court removed him in April 2025, and a snap election brought Lee Jae Myung to power.
• Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun faces a requested life sentence; Cho Ji-ho, Noh Sang-won and Kim Bong-sik face requests for 20, 30 and 15 years respectively.
• Yoon faces eight criminal trials, including another case alleging that drone flights over North Korea were intended to create a pretext for martial law.
• South Korea retains capital punishment but has carried out no executions since December 1997.
• The Seoul Central District Court is scheduled to deliver its verdict on February 19.