Special counsel seeks 30-year prison term for Yoon in second trial over ‘Pyongyang drone deployment’... “More serious than insurrection”

[Financial News] Former President Yoon Suk Yeol was again facing a 30-year prison term in the second trial on charges of general treason related to the ‘Pyongyang drone deployment operation,’ the same sentence sought in the first trial. Heavy sentences were also sought for the military commanders at the time, who were indicted on charges including trying to provoke North Korea into an armed attack and create a pretext for declaring emergency martial law.
Cho Eun-seok’s special counsel team sought 30 years in prison for each of them at the final hearing in the appeal trial on general treason charges against former President Yoon, former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun and others, held on the 16th before Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul High Court, presided over by Judge Yoon Sung-sik.
The first-trial court accepted the special counsel’s request at the time for a 30-year prison term. In Kim’s case, it imposed a 30-year sentence, heavier than the 25 years sought by prosecutors. In the second trial, the special counsel again sought 30 years for Yoon and, taking the first-trial ruling into account, sought 30 years for Kim.
Yoon, Kim and others were put on trial on charges of ordering the Drone Operations Command, around October 2024, to carry out an operation to deploy drones into Pyongyang in order to create a pretext for declaring emergency martial law. They were also charged with abusing their authority in issuing the order and making soldiers do things they were not obligated to do.
The first-trial court ruled, “This operation is recognized as one intended to create circumstances for declaring emergency martial law,” adding, “It cannot be viewed as a legitimate military operation.”
Yeo In-hyung, the former commander of the Defense Counterintelligence Command, who was also indicted on charges of being briefed on the operation and advising on the timing of emergency martial law, was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Kim Yong-dae, the former commander of the Drone Operations Command who led the actual drone operation, was sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for five years.
In the second trial, the special counsel again asked the court to sentence Yeo to 20 years in prison and Kim to five years.
The special counsel team argued, “This was a serious crime in which the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the defense minister and the counterintelligence commander abused their powers of military command and operational control to provoke North Korea into an armed attack and were willing to risk anything from a localized conflict at minimum to a full-scale war at maximum, in order to create a pretext for emergency martial law. The crime is, if anything, more serious than insurrection.”
It went on to argue, “Yeo attended every meeting to plot the scheme and was a key planner who devised and proposed, in notes, ways to create the conditions for martial law. Despite this, it was unfair for the first-trial court to reduce his sentence on the grounds of ‘passive participation.’” It also stressed of Kim, “He systematically mobilized subordinate soldiers to conceal and manipulate a serious crime, yet denied the charges in their entirety. The suspended sentence handed down at trial was excessively lenient.”
Kim and Yeo completely denied the charges and pleaded for acquittal.
Kim countered, “The drone operation was a purely defensive military operation, unrelated to martial law and intended to respond to North Korea’s trash-balloon provocations.” He added, “I knew nothing at all about the emergency martial law plan. The chief of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others in the key command chain viewed it as a normal operation and were not indicted, while only lower-ranking commanders in the chain of command were branded accomplices of the minister. That is a double standard that violates fairness.”
Yeo’s side also countered, “Even on December 3, the day martial law was declared, he attended a dinner to encourage officers who were being transferred and carried out his normal duties, among other things, and had no prior knowledge whatsoever that martial law would be declared.” It argued, “Punishing routine counterintelligence information-sharing and legitimate military operations as general treason clearly violates the principle of legality and the principle of proportionality.”
Yoon and Kim are scheduled to present their closing arguments and make their final statements as defendants at the afternoon hearing.
[email protected] Lee Chang-hoon Reporter