In brief
In a fresh request for the death penalty, prosecutors led by special counsel Cho Eun‑suk slammed former President Yoon Suk‑yeol’s December 2024 martial‑law declaration as an act of insurrection. The appeal follows a February lower‑court ruling that handed Yoon a life sentence. South Korea’s judicial system allows only capital punishment or life imprisonment for an insurrection ringleader, and the Seoul High Court is set to hold further hearings before deciding on a final sentence.
On Thursday, special counsel Cho Eun‑suk’s team filed a request for the death penalty against former President Yoon Suk‑yeol during his appellate trial over insurrection charges tied to a brief martial‑law declaration on Dec. 3, 2024. The Seoul High Court will hold two additional hearings before setting a sentencing date. The request comes eight months after a lower court imposed a life‑imprisonment sentence on Yoon for staging a riot by announcing martial law and deploying troops to the National Assembly compound.
The inquiry originates from the special counsel’s view that Yoon’s actions represented a “worst act” that violated the Constitution. According to a Yonhap report, a member of Cho’s team said, “There is no reason to hesitate to hand down the death penalty.” The attorney added, “The strongest argument for objection to the death penalty is the possibility of a misjudgment just in case, but in this case, there is no room for that.” The same source recorded the counsel’s criticism that the lower court’s life sentence was “too lenient” and that a societal practice of not executing the penalty should not shield Yoon from capital punishment.
In his 2024 appeal, Yoon maintains that the martial‑law order was a warning to the opposition‑controlled parliament amid a series of impeachments and attempts to cut the state budget. By that account, the brief emergency status had been revoked within six hours by a vote of the National Assembly, and troops were withdrawn. However, the lower court concluded that the troops’ presence constituted “an attempt to paralyze parliament and arrest key politicians.” The court also ruled that the commander‑in‑chief’s decision to deploy armed troops “pointing at the people” was an unforgivable crime that “destroyed the constitutional order and tried to turn back the clock of the Republic of Korea by 40 years.”
Background on the 2024 Martial‑Law Declaration
On the night of Dec. 3, 2024, Yoon declared martial law, citing a “suspected lack of active defense of the state” as the cause for the emergency. The declaration was lifted hours later after the National Assembly voted to revoke the order. The six‑hour window saw the National Assembly compound occupied by armed soldiers—an event the court described as an attempt to paralyze parliament. The initial judgement of life imprisonment was hand‑tabled in February 2025, after an indictment of Yoon and a formal motion to impeach him by the Constitutional Court in April 2025. Yoon was deposed from the presidency following the impeachment ruling.
South Korea’s criminal code allows only two possible sentences for a ringleader of insurrection: either the death penalty, or life imprisonment (with or without labor). Thus, the special counsel only has the choice of either capital punishment or life imprisonment. The Seoul High Court’s upcoming hearings will determine whether the new death‑penalty request overturns the lower court’s original life sentence.
Amnesty International has long classified South Korea as a “death‑penalty abolitionist in practice,” noting that the country has not executed anyone since December 1997. Nonetheless, the death penalty remains a legal penalty that has not been applied, and the current request brings the issue back to the nation’s public stage.
The ruling court—based in Seoul's high‑court complex—has said it will schedule the next hearing to examine whether Yoon’s statement is adequate, and whether the court should impose a more punitive measure. The special counsel’s team is urging a harsher sentence on the grounds that the event “destroyed the constitutional order,” while Yoon’s defense continues to emphasize the proportionate nature of his warning. The seizure of the army’s presence within the National Assembly is described as a “dangerous precedent” by prosecution officials; a special counsel member identified the troops’ armed stance as “unforgivable” and intrinsically evidence of an attempted coup.
Yonhap further reported that the special counsel’s request includes an assurance that “the practice of not executing the death penalty should not be a reason to not hand it down.” The prosecutor’s stance, he said, is that the life sentence from the lower court was insufficient in the face of the crimes’ severity.
Xinhua noted that the request returned to the original sentencing demand from the first‑instance trial, where Yoon was sentenced to life imprisonment in February 2025. The report described the special counsel’s request as “matching the team's original sentencing demand.” The article also listed the broad timeline of Yoon’s defeat: the original martial‑law declaration, the National Assembly’s revocation, the judicial impeachment, the de‑possession of the presidency, and the subsequent indictments and trials.
In addition to the legal aspects, the broader debate surrounding the potential death penalty reflects ongoing political and social tensions. Some commentators see the request as a “bold step” expected to “shield the constitutional order” from future crises, while other voices point to the fragility of democracy in South Korea’s institutional framework.
From a procedural standpoint, there are no indications that the court will set a new sentencing date immediately. However, the strategic advice of the prosecution team suggests that the death penalty request may pressure the court to consider harsher punishments and expedite the appellate process. The next round of hearings will again address Yoon’s final statement, which is scheduled to be delivered next Thursday, per the court schedule.
Public reaction remains mixed. Many condemn Yoon for his short‑lived but highly visible attempt to enforce a martial‑law declaration. Others defend his actions as an emergency measure taken in a moment of political crisis, despite a lack of actual war or a natural disaster. The ongoing debate further demonstrates the fine line between constitutional authority and presidential overreach.
Because South Korea’s judicial branch can only impose either death or life imprisonment for a ringleader of insurrection, the result of the upcoming hearings will define the final verdict on Yoon’s past actions. Until the Seoul High Court reaches a decision, Yoon remains under the legal shadow of both the capital punishment debate and the institutional repercussions stemming from his brief martial‑law declaration. The case will likely serve as a benchmark for future executive misuse of emergency powers in civilian governance.
