[Financial News] Yoon Suk Yeol, who rose from a persecuted prosecutor general to the presidency as the most powerful figure in state affairs, has ultimately failed to avoid the disgraceful label of “leader of an insurrection.” The constitutionality and legality of the December 3 Emergency Martial Law have once again been put on trial, following earlier rulings against former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min. The court’s decision to impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty sought by the special counsel appears to reflect the reality that South Korea is, in effect, a country that no longer carries out executions, while still imposing the highest practical punishment available. Yoon’s side immediately announced plans to appeal, but given that multiple first-instance courts have already recognized the December 3 Emergency Martial Law as an insurrection, it will be difficult to overturn the outcome. The court first determined that the December 3 Emergency Martial Law constituted an insurrection. Among the various issues surrounding whether the martial law amounted to insurrection, the judges placed the greatest weight on the planned deployment of the military to the National Assembly. They focused on the intent to paralyze the legislature’s functions for a considerable period by sending in troops. On that basis, the court found that the crime of “disruption of the constitutional order (insurrection)” under the Criminal Act was established, because there was an attempt to disable constitutional functions and institutions. The court stated, “When the president mobilizes the military to arrest lawmakers, the purpose is to obstruct parliamentary activities or to prevent the National Assembly from functioning properly for a considerable period,” adding, “It can be regarded as a violent uprising carried out with the military for the purpose of controlling the exercise of parliamentary authority.” The ruling stressed that even if the president may, in a formal sense, declare emergency martial law, its substance must not infringe on the functions of the executive, judiciary, or legislature that are guaranteed by the Constitution. The mere act of declaring martial law under presidential authority cannot by itself amount to insurrection, the court explained, but if the functions of constitutional institutions are paralyzed or there is an attempt to do so, then an insurrection with the purpose of disrupting the constitutional order is inevitably established. In doing so, the judges rejected in full Yoon’s argument that this was merely a “warning-type” martial law. The court also held that the means—emergency martial law—and the motive—an alleged national crisis—must be strictly distinguished. Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon remarked, “You cannot steal candles just because you say you are reading the Bible,” underscoring this point. Orders to arrest politicians, instructions to cut off power and water to media outlets, and attempts to occupy the National Election Commission and remove its servers were all found to be criminal. The court classified all of these acts as part of a “violent uprising.” It stated, “It is reasonable to view these actions as having sufficient force to disturb public peace throughout the Republic of Korea and in the Seoul metropolitan area where the National Assembly and other key institutions are located.” The judges went on to cite, among other things, the planned deployment of armed troops to the National Assembly and the mobilization of helicopters and vehicles equipped for arrests, concluding that “most of these acts fall within the scope of a violent uprising.” Although these events did not ultimately occur and remained at the attempted stage, the court assessed the real possibility that they could have been carried out. The court also rejected Yoon’s challenges to the scope of investigative authority held by the prosecution service and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). When Yoon’s pretrial detention was previously canceled, the court at that time had noted that there was room for legal dispute over whether the CIO had jurisdiction to investigate insurrection. In this trial, however, the judges recognized the investigative powers of both the prosecution and the CIO, effectively putting an end to the controversy that had arisen. At the same time, the court declined to accept the special counsel’s argument that Yoon declared emergency martial law in order to establish a long-term dictatorship. It cited several reasons: the martial law plan was excessively crude, the importance of the notebook of Noh Sang-won had not been verified, and there was no trace of evidence directly supporting a scheme to permanently neutralize the National Assembly. Even while finding Yoon guilty on all of these charges, the court’s choice of life imprisonment instead of the statutory maximum of the death penalty has prompted various interpretations. Although the death penalty is formally the highest punishment under the law, different courts take different views in practice. Because South Korea has effectively stopped carrying out executions, some benches regard life imprisonment, rather than death, as the highest meaningful sentence. A lawyer who previously served as a judge explained, “Choosing life imprisonment instead of the death penalty emphasizes the substance of the punishment.” Yoon’s legal team has announced plans to appeal. In a statement released after the sentencing, the defense said, “We are in such despair that we cannot even utter the bare minimum phrase that we respect the judiciary’s decision,” and declared, “We will never bow to distortion and lies, and we will fight to the very end.” However, legal experts generally believe that while there may be room for a reduced sentence, it will be difficult to overturn the core finding that “emergency martial law equals insurrection.” A lawyer who formerly served as a presiding judge predicted, “Since the December 3 Emergency Martial Law has already been deemed an insurrection in the rulings against former Prime Minister Han and former Minister Lee, it will be hard for the higher courts to reverse that conclusion in Yoon’s case.” Another former presiding judge-turned-lawyer also forecast, “This case will, in effect, go all the way to the Supreme Court of Korea.” theknight@fnnews.com Jung Kyung-soo, Choi Eun-sol Reporter