Seoul, South Korea — In a historic and highly charged legal development, South Korean prosecutors have formally requested the death penalty for former President Yoon Suk‑yeol, accusing him of orchestrating an insurrection through an illegal declaration of martial law in December 2024. The unprecedented move comes during the final stages of Yoon’s trial before the Seoul Central District Court, marking one of the most dramatic prosecutions of a head of state in modern South Korean history.
While capital punishment remains on the statute books in South Korea, the country has not carried out an execution since 1997, and legal experts say a death sentence is unlikely to be implemented even if imposed. Nonetheless, the request underscores the severity with which prosecutors view Yoon’s actions and their potential threat to the nation’s constitutional democracy.
The Charge: Martial Law as Insurrection
Prosecutors from a special counsel team led by Cho Eun‑suk argued on 13 January 2026 that Yoon’s December 2024 martial law declaration was not a legitimate use of emergency powers but part of a premeditated effort to overturn democratic governance and maintain his grip on power.
In court, prosecutors described Yoon’s actions as “unconstitutional and illegal”, contending that the decree undermined the National Assembly, the Election Commission and broader democratic institutions. The indictment alleges a coordinated scheme dating back to October 2023, in which Yoon and associates — including former Defence Minister Kim Yong‑hyun — plotted to use martial law as a tool to neutralise political opposition and consolidate authority.
South Korean law provides for the death penalty as one of several possible sanctions for insurrection, alongside life imprisonment with or without labour. Prosecutors argued that, given Yoon’s lack of remorse and the gravity of his alleged constitutional violations, the maximum penalty is appropriate.
The Courtroom and Public Reaction
Eyewitness reports from the Seoul Central District Court describe a courtroom charged with tension during the final sentencing arguments. Yoon reportedly showed no visible remorse as prosecutors presented their case and even appeared to smile when the death penalty was requested. Supporters in the gallery reacted with jeers and profanity, prompting the presiding judge to maintain order.
Beyond the legal drama, reactions among the South Korean public have been deeply divided. Some see the demand for the death penalty as a symbolic affirmation of accountability for those who threaten democratic norms. Others caution that capital punishment is inconsistent with contemporary legal principles and political norms.
Legal scholars have also weighed in — with some arguing that life imprisonment would be more fitting under South Korea’s legal framework, especially given the de facto moratorium on executions that has been in place since the late 1990s. Critics of the death penalty stressed that seeking it does not necessarily align with the country’s long‑standing practice of avoiding actual executions.
Historical and Constitutional Context
Yoon’s trial has revived comparisons to past reckonings with authoritarian pasts in South Korea. In the mid‑1990s, former military leaders Chun Doo‑hwan and Roh Tae‑woo were also prosecuted for insurrection related to their roles in overthrowing government, with prosecutors initially seeking severe penalties. In those cases, death sentences were imposed at trial but subsequently commuted on appeal and followed by later pardons.
The 2024 martial law episode began on 3 December 2024, when Yoon sought to deploy emergency powers for roughly six hours before lawmakers and the public successfully forced the measure’s repeal. The decree sparked mass protests and prompted the National Assembly and the Supreme Court to rule against its legality, leading to Yoon’s impeachment, removal from office in April 2025, and subsequent prosecution.
Yoon’s Defense and Denials
Throughout the trial, Yoon has vigorously denied all charges, insisting that his martial law decision was within presidential authority and intended to stabilise the country amid political deadlock. In court statements, he has framed his actions as efforts to counter legislative obstruction and safeguard national interests, though prosecutors reject this narrative and characterise it as an attempt to justify unconstitutional conduct.
The defence has also contested the prosecutors’ characterisation of the insurrection charge and challenged the evidence linking Yoon’s actions to deliberate intent to subvert constitutional order.
Legal Implications and Upcoming Verdict
The Seoul Central District Court is expected to deliver its verdict on 19 February 2026, following final arguments from both sides. If Yoon is found guilty of insurrection, the court will decide between life imprisonment and the death penalty — a choice that carries enormous legal and symbolic weight in a country that officially retains capital punishment but has not executed anyone in nearly three decades.
Even if the court upholds a death sentence at trial, legal experts note that South Korea’s practice and precedent make implementation unlikely, with appeals and possible political considerations shaping the eventual outcome.
Broader Political and Social Fallout
The case has profound implications for South Korea’s democratic integrity, political accountability and public trust in institutions. It comes after a period of intense political polarisation and unrest that saw Yoon’s administration clash repeatedly with opposition lawmakers and civil society. The legacy of the martial law episode will likely shape South Korean politics for years, influencing debates about executive power, rule of law and checks and balances.
Civil society organisations have expressed mixed views — some urging stern punishment to deter future attempts at power grabs, others warning against the use of extreme penalties in politically charged trials.
As the verdict approaches, both supporters and opponents of Yoon are mobilising, underscoring how the legal process has become enmeshed in wider societal debates about leadership, responsibility and democratic resilience in one of Asia’s most dynamic political systems.
