During Tuesday’s hearing, Yoon was scheduled to deliver remarks in his own defense. He has consistently asserted that the December 2024 decree represented a “peaceful wake-up call” intended to highlight what he labeled the growing influence of the liberal Democratic Party, which controlled the National Assembly and regularly blocked his legislative agenda. Throughout the proceedings he has referred to the opposition-led parliament as a gathering of “criminals” and “anti-state forces.”
The emergency order, the first imposition of martial law in South Korea in more than four decades, dispatched soldiers and armored vehicles into central Seoul. Troops surrounded the National Assembly, restricted movement around election commission facilities and occupied key intersections. The show of force immediately triggered memories of the military-backed governments of the 1970s and 1980s, which had used similar tactics to quell pro-democracy demonstrations.
Public backlash was swift. On the night the decree took effect, thousands of citizens converged on the National Assembly in protest, demanding Yoon’s resignation. Enough lawmakers—including some from Yoon’s own conservative party—reached the legislative chamber to convene an emergency session. Within hours they voted to nullify the decree, stripping the armed forces of the domestic authority granted by the presidential order.
The fallout proved politically fatal. Days after the incident, the Assembly passed an impeachment motion, forwarding the case to the Constitutional Court. The court upheld the impeachment in April 2025, formally removing Yoon from office. The collapse ended a rapid political ascent: Yoon, previously a high-profile prosecutor, had been elected president in 2022 after only a year in partisan politics.
Lee Jae Myung, the Democratic Party figure who led the impeachment campaign, won a snap presidential election in June 2025. Upon taking office, Lee appointed three independent counsels to investigate alleged wrongdoing by Yoon, his wife Kim Keon Hee and several former aides. Speculation circulated that Yoon had invoked martial law to shield his spouse from corruption probes, but Investigative Counsel Cho’s team concluded last month that the former president had drafted a detailed plan over more than a year to sideline political opponents and consolidate personal authority.
In the months following the decree, South Korea endured a period of diplomatic standstill and market volatility as cabinet ministries, the courts and the military navigated the leadership vacuum. Yoon’s promises to resist arrest further polarized the domestic political landscape. He became the first sitting South Korean head of state to be taken into custody when prosecutors detained him in January 2025, shortly before the Constitutional Court ruling.
The impending February verdict will determine whether Yoon faces the nation’s first capital sentence in nearly three decades or a lengthy prison term. Regardless of the outcome, the case continues to dominate South Korean politics, casting a long shadow over debates on executive power, military involvement in civilian affairs and the durability of the country’s democratic institutions.
Crédito da imagem: Associated Press
