On the afternoon of February 19, 2026, the eyes of a nation will turn to Seoul Central District Court as it prepares to deliver a historic verdict. At precisely 3 PM, in courtroom 417, former President Yoon Seok-yeol and seven senior military and police officials will learn their fate—443 days after the controversial declaration of emergency martial law on December 3, 2024, set off a political earthquake. The proceedings, authorized for live broadcast, will unfold on national television, offering the public an unprecedented window into a moment that could reshape the country’s legal and political landscape.
According to Yonhap News and YTN, the main charge facing Yoon is nothing short of leading a rebellion. The special prosecutor has argued that Yoon, in the aftermath of the disputed 2024 election, mobilized the military and police to suspend the functions of the National Assembly and the Central Election Management Committee. This, they claim, amounts to a violent uprising—a direct affront to the constitutional order as defined by Article 87 of the Criminal Act. The stakes are as high as they come: the prosecution has requested the death penalty, a sentence not sought for a former South Korean president since the trials of Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo in the 1990s.
The legal drama is set against a backdrop of extraordinary security. As reported by YTN, both supporters and opponents of Yoon began gathering outside the courthouse the day before the verdict. Police buses lined the streets, and all but one entrance to the building was sealed off, with strict identity checks for anyone approaching. The tension is palpable, and authorities have left nothing to chance, especially in the days following the Lunar New Year holiday.
Inside the courtroom, the process will be meticulous and public. The verdict will be read out for all eight defendants at once, given the number of accused. The sequence will include a recitation of the charges, a determination of guilt or innocence, an explanation of the sentencing rationale, and the final judgment. Yoon has confirmed his intention to attend, and the live broadcast will capture his reaction in real time—a rarity in the annals of South Korean justice.
At the heart of the trial is the question: did the December 3 martial law and its aftermath truly constitute a rebellion? The law is clear but strict. For an act to be considered rebellion under Article 87, there must be an intent to disrupt constitutional order and the use of physical force or its equivalent. The prosecution contends that Yoon’s actions—deploying the military and police to key government institutions, organizing arrest squads for politicians, and ordering blackouts for media outlets—were not mere overreach, but a calculated attempt to seize and monopolize power.
During closing arguments, the special prosecutor did not mince words. According to YTN, they defined the December 3 martial law as “a violent rebellion aimed at monopolizing power,” and insisted that Yoon “deserves a harsher penalty than that given to Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo.” The prosecution further noted, “There is no special reason to give a lighter sentence,” emphasizing that the symbolic power of a death sentence would demonstrate the state’s resolve to confront such crimes.
Yoon, for his part, has steadfastly denied the charges. In his final statement to the court last month, he declared, “It was only a few hours of martial law—perhaps the shortest in modern history—yet they are calling it a rebellion.” He has maintained throughout that the martial law was intended as a warning and an appeal, not a blueprint for a coup. His defense team has argued that the deployment of military and police forces to the National Assembly and election commission was for public order, not to suppress democracy. They have also continued to cite suspicions of election fraud and threats from so-called “anti-state forces” as justification for the emergency measures.
But the courts have not been sympathetic to these arguments. In related cases, including those against former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and former Minister of the Interior Lee Sang-min, judges have already ruled that the December 3 martial law constituted a rebellion. On February 12, the Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 32 sentenced Lee to seven years in prison, finding that the attempt to blockade the National Assembly and election commission met the legal definition of a violent uprising with the intent to disrupt constitutional order. The court concluded that the use of military and police force in this context was “in line with the Supreme Court’s definition of a riot.”
Should the court find Yoon guilty, the consequences will be severe. The law prescribes death, life imprisonment, or at minimum, 20 years in prison (if mitigating circumstances are found). The brevity of the martial law, the absence of large-scale bloodshed, and its rapid reversal could be considered in sentencing. However, the prosecution has argued that Yoon’s refusal to accept responsibility or express remorse weighs heavily against leniency.
The verdict will also determine the fate of the seven other defendants, all senior figures in the military and police. The special prosecutor has requested life imprisonment for former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, 20 years for former National Police Chief Cho Ji-ho, and sentences ranging from 10 to 15 years for other top officials. These men are accused of playing “important roles” in the attempted suppression of constitutional institutions.
The outcome of this trial will echo far beyond the walls of the courthouse. As Yonhap News points out, the prosecution’s case is informed by the lessons of past military dictatorships, warning that attempts to subvert constitutional order through martial law remain a threat, even decades after the country’s return to democracy. The prosecution has argued that only a strict judicial response can prevent history from repeating itself.
For now, the nation waits. The verdict, to be handed down by Judge Ji Gui-yeon and broadcast live, will not only decide the fate of Yoon Seok-yeol and his co-defendants, but will serve as a test of South Korea’s commitment to constitutional order and the rule of law. The world will be watching to see whether the judiciary can deliver justice in a case that has divided public opinion and revived old wounds.
As the clock ticks down to 3 PM, anticipation and anxiety hang in the air. Whatever the outcome, the events of February 19, 2026, will be remembered as a defining moment in the nation’s ongoing struggle to reconcile its turbulent past with its democratic aspirations.