On a chilly Friday morning in Seoul, history was made inside the city’s Central District Court. Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, once the nation’s top leader, was sentenced to five years in prison—a stunning fall from grace that marks the first criminal verdict in a series of high-profile cases stemming from the turbulent December 2024 martial law crisis. The ruling, delivered on January 16, 2026, is the first judicial decision to directly address the illegality of both the declaration and the implementation of martial law during that fraught period, according to reporting from ABC News.
Yoon’s sentencing is just the latest chapter in a saga that has gripped South Korea for over a year. His decision to impose martial law in late 2024 triggered massive public protests, leading to his impeachment, arrest, and eventual removal from office. The court’s ruling on Friday is only the first of eight criminal trials Yoon faces, but its implications are profound—both for Yoon personally and for the country’s political landscape.
As the verdict was read, Yoon attended the live-broadcast proceedings wearing a white shirt and navy suit. He remained impassive throughout, showing no visible reaction even as Judge Baek Dae-hyun of the Seoul Central District Court announced the sentence and delivered a scathing rebuke of Yoon’s actions. Supporters and detractors alike gathered outside the courthouse, some holding pictures of the former president, their faces etched with anticipation and worry, as captured by the Associated Press.
At the heart of the court’s decision were several damning findings. Yoon was convicted of obstructing his own arrest by mobilizing presidential security officials to block authorities from executing a lawful arrest warrant at his residence. The court also concluded that he infringed on the rights of nine cabinet members by convening only a select few handpicked ministers to deliberate on the declaration of martial law—an apparent attempt to make the meeting seem official while excluding dissenting voices. As detailed by NPR, the court found that Yoon defied attempts to detain him, fabricated the martial law proclamation, and sidestepped a legally mandated full Cabinet meeting.
Judge Baek Dae-hyun minced no words in his televised ruling. “Despite having a greater duty than anyone else as president to uphold the Constitution, he instead disregarded measures designed to prevent presidential arbitrariness,” the judge stated, as reported by ABC News. In a further rebuke, Baek said that imposing "a grave punishment" was necessary because Yoon had not shown remorse and had only repeated "hard-to-comprehend excuses," according to NPR. The judge also emphasized the need to restore legal systems damaged by Yoon’s actions.
The martial law crisis that led to Yoon’s downfall was as dramatic as it was brief. In December 2024, Yoon declared martial law in response to what he described as obstruction by the liberal-controlled parliament, claiming his decree was only meant to inform the public of the dangers posed by political gridlock. But investigators and prosecutors saw things very differently. They viewed Yoon’s actions as an attempt to bolster and prolong his rule, charging him with rebellion, abuse of power, and a host of other criminal offenses.
The most serious charge against Yoon—that his enforcement of martial law amounted to rebellion—remains unresolved. In a separate trial, prosecutors have requested the death penalty, arguing that his alleged actions posed a grave threat to South Korea’s constitutional order and warranted the harshest punishment allowed by law. Insurrection is one of the few crimes still punishable by death in the country. The verdict in that case is expected next month, and its outcome could overshadow Friday’s five-year sentence.
The prosecution’s request for the death penalty has sparked intense debate across South Korea. Yoon’s defense team has accused prosecutors of being politically motivated and lacking legal grounds for such "an excessive" sentence. They argue that Yoon never intended to place the country under prolonged military rule and that his actions, while controversial, did not result in casualties or lasting harm. Yoon himself has insisted that his decree was not a power grab but a necessary measure to alert the public to parliamentary obstruction. However, the court was not persuaded by these arguments, finding that Yoon’s justifications amounted to excuses rather than genuine remorse.
Legal experts, such as Park SungBae—a criminal law specialist cited by NPR—believe there is little chance the court will ultimately hand down the death penalty in the rebellion case. Instead, they predict a life sentence or a prison term of thirty years or more if Yoon is spared execution. South Korea, after all, has maintained a de facto moratorium on executions since 1997, and death sentences are rarely imposed. The court is also expected to consider that Yoon’s martial law decree did not result in casualties and was not in effect for long, though his lack of remorse could weigh against him.
The political fallout from Yoon’s actions and subsequent prosecution has been far-reaching. His imposition of martial law sparked enormous public protests, with citizens from all walks of life demanding his ouster. Parliament responded by impeaching Yoon, and his arrest and dismissal soon followed. The spectacle of a former president facing criminal charges—let alone the possibility of the death penalty—has fueled intense national debate about the limits of executive power and the strength of South Korea’s democratic institutions.
For many South Koreans, the sight of Yoon on trial is both a cautionary tale and a testament to the resilience of the country’s legal system. The ruling on January 16, 2026, is a clear signal that even the highest office in the land is not above the law. Yet the story is far from over. With several more trials to come—including the high-stakes rebellion case—Yoon’s fate hangs in the balance, and the nation continues to wrestle with the legacy of his brief but turbulent presidency.
As the dust settles from Friday’s verdict, South Korea finds itself at a crossroads. The court’s decision to impose a prison sentence, rather than the death penalty, reflects both the gravity of Yoon’s offenses and the country’s evolving attitudes toward justice and accountability. With the next trial looming and public opinion sharply divided, the Yoon saga is sure to remain in the headlines for months to come.
In the end, the case of Yoon Suk Yeol stands as a stark reminder of the responsibilities that come with power—and the consequences when those responsibilities are ignored.