We will now begin the sentencing of the impeachment case of President Yoon Seok-yeol, 2024헌나8(2024HUN-NA8).

First, we will look at the requirements for legality.

➀ Let’s look at whether the declaration of martial law in this case is subject to judicial review.

Considering the purpose of the impeachment trial, which is to protect the constitutional order from violations of the Constitution and laws by high-level public officials, the declaration of martial law in this case can be examined for violations of the Constitution and laws, even though it is an act that requires a high degree of political decision-making.

➁ Let’s look at the fact that the impeachment bill was passed without an investigation by the National Assembly’s Judiciary and Legal Affairs Committee.

The Constitution leaves the procedure for impeachment to the National Assembly, and the National Assembly Act stipulates that the National Assembly has the discretion to investigate the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, the impeachment resolution cannot be deemed to be illegitimate because there was no investigation by the Judiciary Committee.

➂ Let’s look at whether the resolution of the impeachment motion in this case violates the principle of one case and one decision.

The National Assembly Act stipulates that a rejected bill cannot be re-proposed during the same session. Although the first impeachment motion against the respondent was not passed during the 418th regular session, the current impeachment motion was proposed during the 419th extraordinary session, so it does not violate the principle of one case, one decision.

Meanwhile, there is a supplementary opinion by Judge Jung Hyung-sik that legislation is needed to limit the number of impeachment proposals in other sessions.

➃ The martial law in this case was lifted in a short period of time and no damage was caused, so let’s look at whether the protected interests were impaired.

Even if the martial law was lifted, the benefit of the doubt cannot be denied because the impeachment grounds for this case have already been established due to the martial law.

➄ Let’s look at the point that the impeachment resolution included acts of violating the Criminal Code, such as treason, but after the impeachment request, the acts were included as unconstitutional.

The withdrawal or amendment of the applicable legal provisions while maintaining the same basic facts does not constitute a withdrawal or amendment of the charges, and therefore is permitted without going through any special procedures.

The Respondent also claims that if the charges did not include the charge of treason, the number of votes required to pass the decision would not have been met, but this is merely a hypothetical claim and there is no objective basis to support it.

➅ Let’s look at the claim that the right to impeach was abused to usurp the president’s position.

Since the process of voting on the impeachment motion in this case was legitimate and the accused’s violation of the constitution or law was demonstrated to a certain level or more, the right to impeach cannot be considered to have been abused.

Then, the impeachment trial request in this case is legitimate.

Meanwhile, regarding the principle of evidence, there are the supplementary opinions of Justices Lee Mi-sun and Kim Hyung-du, who argue that the special rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be applied in the impeachment trial process with a relaxed standard, and the supplementary opinions of Justices Kim Bok-hyung and Cho Han-chang, who argue that the special rules should be applied more strictly in the impeachment trial process in the future.

Next, we will look at whether the respondent violated the Constitution or laws in the performance of his duties, and whether the respondent’s violation of the law was serious enough to dismiss him.

First, we will look at each of the charges.

① Let’s look at the declaration of martial law in this case.

According to the Constitution and the Martial Law Act, one of the substantive requirements for declaring a state of emergency is that there must be a state of war, incident, or similar national emergency in which the country is engaged in combat with an enemy or a situation in which the social order is so disrupted that it is difficult to perform administrative and judicial functions in a realistic manner.

The respondent claims that the above-mentioned grave crisis situation has arisen due to the opposition’s unprecedented impeachment prosecution, unilateral exercise of legislative power, and attempts to cut the budget, which were all carried out by the National Assembly, which is dominated by the opposition.

After the inauguration of the President, the National Assembly proposed a total of 22 impeachment bills against the Minister of the Interior and Safety, prosecutors, the chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, and the auditor general, before the declaration of martial law in this case. This raised concerns that the National Assembly used the impeachment trial system as a means of political pressure against the government, based solely on suspicions of law violations without considering the unconstitutionality and illegality of the impeachment charges.

However, at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case, only the impeachment proceedings against one prosecutor and the chairman of the Korea Communications Commission were in progress.

The bills that the respondent claims are problematic because the opposition party unilaterally passed them have not come into effect because the respondent has requested reconsideration or postponed their promulgation.

The 2025 budget proposal cannot affect the situation at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case, which was when the 2024 budget was being executed, and the National Assembly Budget Committee has only passed a resolution on the budget proposal, not a plenary session.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the exercise of the National Assembly’s powers to impeach, legislate, and deliberate on the budget proposal caused a significant crisis at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case.

Even if the exercise of the National Assembly’s authority is illegal or unjust, it can be dealt with through the usual methods of exercising power, such as the impeachment trial by the Constitutional Court and the request for reconsideration of the bill by the accused, so the exercise of the state of emergency cannot be justified.

The accused also claims that he declared martial law in this case to dispel suspicions of fraudulent elections. However, just because there are suspicions does not mean that a serious crisis has actually occurred.
In addition, the National Election Commission announced that it had taken most of the security vulnerabilities into account before the 22nd National Assembly election, and that it had taken measures such as disclosing CCTV footage of the storage location of the pre- and postal ballot boxes 24 hours a day and introducing a ballot-counting system during the ballot counting process, so the Claimant’s claim is not valid.

In the end, even if all the circumstances claimed by the Respondent are taken into account, it cannot be said that a crisis situation existed at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case to the extent that the Respondent’s decision could be objectively justified.

The Constitution and the Martial Law Act require that there be a ‘need and purpose to meet military needs or maintain public order and safety’ as substantive requirements for the declaration of a state of emergency.

However, the alleged paralysis of the government and allegations of fraudulent elections, which are the result of the exercise of the National Assembly’s authority, are issues that should be resolved through political, institutional, and judicial means, not by mobilising troops.

The respondent claims that the martial law in this case was a ‘warning martial law’ or ‘appeal martial law’ to inform the people of the abuse of power by the opposition and the crisis in national affairs, but this is not the purpose of the martial law as defined by the martial law law.

Furthermore, the Respondent did not stop at declaring martial law, but went on to commit acts that violated the Constitution and the law, such as mobilising the military and police to interfere with the exercise of the National Assembly’s powers, so the Respondent’s claim that the martial law was a warning or an appeal cannot be accepted.

In this case, the declaration of martial law violated the substantive requirements for declaring a state of emergency.

Next, we will look at whether the declaration of martial law in this case complied with the procedural requirements.

The declaration of martial law and the appointment of the martial law commander must be deliberated by the State Council.

It is acknowledged that the Respondent briefly explained the purpose of the martial law declaration to the Prime Minister and nine members of the State Council immediately before declaring martial law in this case.

However, it is difficult to believe that the proclamation of martial law was discussed, considering that the respondent did not explain the specific details of the martial law, such as the martial law commander, and did not give other members the opportunity to express their opinions.

In addition, the respondent violated the procedural requirements for declaring a state of emergency as stipulated in the Constitution and the State of Emergency Act because he declared martial law in this case even though the Prime Minister and relevant state council members had not signed the declaration of martial law, and he did not announce the date and time of enforcement, the region of enforcement, or the martial law commander, nor did he notify the National Assembly without delay.

② Let’s look at the deployment of the military and police to the National Assembly.

The respondent ordered the Minister of National Defense to send troops to the National Assembly.
As a result, soldiers entered the National Assembly grounds using helicopters and some even broke the windows and entered the main building.

The respondent instructed the Army Special Warfare Command and others to ‘seize the building because the number of people needed to meet the quorum is not met, and break down the door to get the people inside.’
The respondent also informed the Commissioner of the National Police Agency of the contents of the Proclamation through the martial law commander and made six phone calls to him directly. The Commissioner of the National Police Agency then ordered the National Assembly to be completely closed to the public.

As a result, some of the members of parliament who had gathered at the National Assembly had to climb over the wall or were not allowed to enter at all.

Meanwhile, the Minister of National Defense instructed the Commander of the National Defense Counterintelligence Command to identify the locations of 14 people, including the Speaker of the National Assembly and representatives of each political party, for the purpose of arresting them if necessary. The Respondent called the First Vice-Director of the National Intelligence Service and asked him to support the National Defense Counterintelligence Command, and the Commander of the National Defense Counterintelligence Command requested the First Vice-Director of the National Intelligence Service to identify the locations of the aforementioned people.

In this way, the respondent interfered with the exercise of the National Assembly’s authority by directing the military and police to control the entry of National Assembly members into the National Assembly and to remove them, thereby violating the constitutional provision that grants the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law and infringing on the deliberation and voting rights of National Assembly members and the privilege of immunity from arrest.
It also infringed on the freedom of political activity by engaging in attempts to locate the representatives of each political party.

The respondent has put soldiers who have served the country with the mission of national security and homeland defence in a position where they are confronted by ordinary citizens by deploying troops for political purposes, including preventing the exercise of the National Assembly’s authority.
Accordingly, the respondent has violated the political neutrality of the Armed Forces and the duty to command the Armed Forces in accordance with the Constitution.

3. Regarding the issuance of the Proclamation in this case.

The Respondent violated the provisions of the Constitution that grant the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law by prohibiting the activities of the National Assembly, local councils, and political parties, as well as the provisions of the Constitution that stipulate the political party system, representative democracy, and the principle of separation of powers.

The provisions of the Constitution and the Martial Law Act that set the requirements for restricting basic rights under the state of emergency and the warrant principle were violated, thereby infringing on the political basic rights, right to collective action, and freedom of occupation of the people.

④ Let’s talk about the seizure and search of the National Election Commission.

The respondent ordered the Minister of National Defense to mobilise troops to inspect the NEC’s computer system. As a result, the troops deployed to the NEC building seized the mobile phones of the on-duty personnel and photographed the computer system while controlling access.

This was a violation of the principle of warrant because it allowed the NEC to be searched and seized without a warrant, and it also violated the independence of the NEC.

⑤ Let’s talk about the location tracking attempts on legal professionals.

As mentioned earlier, the Respondent was involved in location tracking attempts that were carried out for the purpose of arresting individuals if necessary, and the targets included a former Chief Justice and former Justices who had recently retired.

This puts incumbent judges under pressure to be arrested by the executive branch at any time, thereby violating the independence of the judiciary.

Let’s look at whether the violations of law by the accused, which we have examined so far, are serious enough to dismiss the accused.

The respondent denied the principles of popular sovereignty and democracy by declaring martial law in this case with the aim of resolving the conflict with the National Assembly, and then interfering with the National Assembly’s exercise of its constitutional powers by deploying the military and police to suppress the National Assembly. The respondent also ignored the constitutional governance structure by deploying troops to seize and search the National Election Commission, and issued the Proclamation in this case, which extensively violated the basic rights of the people.

Such acts violated the basic principles of the rule of law and the democratic principle, and in themselves violated the constitutional order and posed a serious threat to the stability of the democratic republic.

On the other hand, the National Assembly was able to quickly pass a resolution calling for the lifting of the state of emergency due to the resistance of the citizens and the passive performance of duties by the military and police, so this does not affect the determination of the seriousness of the respondent’s violation of the law.

The President’s authority is granted by the Constitution. The respondent exercised the state of emergency, which is an authority that should be exercised with the utmost care, beyond the limits set by the Constitution, causing distrust in the exercise of his authority as President.

Since the respondent took office, the exercise of authority by several high-ranking officials has been suspended during the impeachment trial due to the unusually large number of impeachment charges led by the opposition.

Regarding the 2025 budget, for the first time in constitutional history, the National Assembly Budget and Accounts Committee voted on the budget alone, with the opposition party alone, to reduce the budget without increasing it.

The main policies established by the respondent could not be implemented due to opposition from the opposition party, and the opposition party unilaterally passed bills that the government opposed, which led to repeated requests for the respondent to veto and the National Assembly’s resolution of bills.

In the process, the respondent must have felt a heavy sense of responsibility to overcome the situation, as he perceived that the government was paralyzed and national interests were being significantly undermined due to the abuse of power by the opposition.

The respondent’s judgment that the National Assembly’s exercise of its authority was an abuse of power or an act that would lead to the paralysis of government should be respected politically.

However, the conflict between the Claimant and the National Assembly is not attributable to the one party alone, and it is a political issue that should be resolved in accordance with the principles of democracy. Political opinions and public decision-making on this issue should be made within the scope that is compatible with the democracy guaranteed by the Constitution.

The National Assembly should have respected minority opinions and tried to reach a conclusion through dialogue and compromise with the government, based on tolerance and restraint.

The respondent should have respected the National Assembly, the representative of the people, as the subject of cooperation.

Nevertheless, the respondent excluded the National Assembly, which is a prerequisite for democratic politics and is difficult to see as compatible with democracy.

Even if the respondent judged that the exercise of the National Assembly’s authority was the tyranny of the majority, it should have allowed checks and balances to be realised through the self-help measures provided for by the Constitution.

The Respondent had the opportunity to persuade the people to let him lead the government in the National Assembly elections held about two years after he took office. Even if the result did not meet the Respondent’s intentions, he should not have attempted to exclude the will of the people who supported the opposition.

Nevertheless, the Respondent, by declaring martial law in violation of the Constitution and the law, has re-enacted the history of abuse of the state of emergency, shocking the people and causing chaos in all areas of society, economy, politics, and diplomacy.

As the President of all the people, he has violated his duty to unite the social community beyond the people who support him.

By mobilising the military and police to undermine the authority of the National Assembly and other constitutional bodies and infringe upon the basic human rights of the people, the respondent has failed in his duty to protect the Constitution and has seriously betrayed the trust of the Korean people, the sovereign of a democratic republic.

Ultimately, the respondent’s unconstitutional and illegal acts constitute a serious violation of the law that cannot be tolerated from the perspective of protecting the Constitution, as they have betrayed the trust of the people.

The negative impact and ripple effect of the respondent’s violation of the law on the constitutional order is significant, and it is deemed that the benefit of protecting the constitution by removing the respondent from office is so great that it outweighs the national loss that would result from removing the president.

Therefore, we issue this order with the unanimous opinion of all the judges.

As this is an impeachment case, we will confirm the time of the sentencing. The time is 11:22 a.m.

Order The President of the Republic of Korea, Yoon Seok-yeol, is dismissed.

This concludes the sentencing.