In a huge moment for South Korea’s democratic trajectory, the criminal trial of the ousted former president Yoon Suk Yeol began on April 14, 2025, at the Seoul Central District Court, marking an crucial juncture in the nation’s democratic history. The hearing, presided over by a nation still reeling from months of political paralysis and societal division, opens a judicial reckoning for a head of state removed in disgrace by the Constitutional Court—a decision predicated upon what prosecutors described as a brazen and unconstitutional seizure of state power. The trial centers on charges of insurrection, a criminal offense in South Korea that carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or even capital punishment, though executions have not been carried out since 1997.
The indictment originates from Yoon’s dramatic and contentious decision to declare martial law on December 3, 2024, during a protracted political impasse with the opposition-dominated National Assembly. In a nationally televised address, President Yoon justified martial law by citing threats from “anti-state” elements and alleged pro-North Korean sympathizers within the opposition party. Claiming necessity to counteract what he termed the “legislative dictatorship” obstructing his administration, Yoon suspended legislative activities, imposed immediate restrictions on media freedoms and public gatherings, and authorized military deployment to enforce the decree.
The declaration of martial law was swiftly and dramatically resisted. Parliamentary staffers and lawmakers physically repelled attempts by special operations soldiers to breach the National Assembly using improvised barricades and fire extinguishers. Within hours, 190 legislators convened in an extraordinary late-night session, decisively voting to nullify the martial law declaration, prompting its revocation roughly six hours after implementation. Although quickly reversed, the event profoundly damaged South Korea’s political stability and institutional integrity.
Yoon appeared at the trial’s opening in a dark navy suit, maintaining defiance and continuing to deny all charges. Prosecutors argued forcefully that Yoon had no constitutional or statutory grounds for imposing martial law, accusing him explicitly of attempting to dismantle and paralyze state institutions, notably the National Assembly. They asserted that Yoon abused state defense mechanisms not to protect national security but rather to suppress democratic oversight and prolong his executive tenure through extralegal means. Prosecutors emphasized that the military itself was placed under tremendous strain, torn between constitutional obligations and an unlawful directive from their commander-in-chief, undermining public confidence in the military command structure.
Significantly explosive evidence is anticipated from testimonies by senior military officials implicated in the martial law operations. Cho Sung-hyun from the army’s capital defense command, for example, previously testified before the Constitutional Court in February that he had been ordered explicitly to deploy troops to forcibly remove lawmakers from parliament. Yoon has categorically denied this allegation, contending his intentions were misunderstood and claiming his actions were only intended to reveal the Democratic Party’s persistent legislative obstruction.
The political and societal ramifications of Yoon’s martial law declaration have resonated deeply across the nation. The Constitutional Court, in ruling to remove Yoon from office, described his actions as a “serious challenge to democracy,” highlighting how his measures rippled destructively across governance, economic stability, and international relations. Their unanimous verdict underscored the severity of his breach of constitutional order.
Conservative supporters, however, continue to rally fervently behind Yoon, viewing his administration’s hardline security measures as essential against progressive political encroachment. Upon returning to his private residence on April 11, 2025, after vacating the presidential Blue House, large crowds of supporters enthusiastically greeted him, waving flags and chanting slogans of solidarity. Yoon responded by vowing publicly to “stand by” his supporters, signaling clear intent to maintain political influence despite serious legal implications.
The liberal opposition, led by Democratic Party figure Lee Jae-myung, harshly criticized Yoon’s refusal to issue a sincere apology as indicative of arrogance and delusion. Lee currently leads presidential polls ahead of the snap election scheduled for June 3, 2025, and has actively positioned his campaign as starkly contrasting Yoon’s leadership style. On the same day as Yoon’s trial began, Lee visited a start-up focusing on artificial intelligence chip development, pledging aggressive governmental investment and regulatory reform in technological industries. This commitment marks an intentional shift away from authoritarian inclinations and towards civil institutional rebuilding and economic modernization.
The upcoming presidential election, rapidly scheduled to restore democratic legitimacy following Yoon’s impeachment, constitutes a critical juncture for South Korea. The vote will test public desire either to reaffirm democratic norms or to succumb to lingering authoritarian populist sentiments within segments of conservative society. Despite his disgraceful ousting, Yoon’s influence looms large over the election cycle, raising questions about his potential political resurgence or influence over conservative factions.
The criminal trial of Yoon Suk Yeol is far more significant than a mere personal judicial proceeding. It embodies a fundamental societal confrontation over executive authority limits, institutional integrity, and democratic resilience. As the trial proceeds, it will deeply shape South Korea’s future political landscape, public trust in governance, and the nation’s commitment to constitutional democracy amid internal division and rising geopolitical stakes.
Gros News 
Leave a comment