ED Disgraced Yoon's unforgivable crime
Yoon appears at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, to attend the sentencing hearing for his trial over charges of treason and abuse of power. Courtesy of Seoul Central District Court
Yoon deserves heavy penalty for abusing power against nation
The court's conviction of former President Yoon Suk Yeol on charges related to the deployment of drones into Pyongyang's airspace marks one of the most consequential moments in the nation's constitutional history. More than simply the downfall of one political leader, the ruling stands as a stark warning about the dangers of unchecked executive power and the catastrophic consequences that can follow when state institutions are subordinated to personal political ambitions.
According to the court's findings, Yoon deliberately sought to manufacture a national security crisis by provoking North Korea, in order to create a pretext for declaring martial law. This represents not merely an abuse of authority but a profound betrayal of public trust. The president wields immense powers, none more significant than command of the armed forces. Those powers are entrusted to the nation's leader for specific purposes: the defense of the state and the protection of its citizens. They are not instruments to be deployed in service of political survival or personal ambition.
The gravity of the offense lies not only in what was done but in the potential consequences. The Korean Peninsula remains one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world, where a miscalculation can rapidly escalate into confrontation. Any deliberate effort to inflame tensions with North Korea for domestic political purposes would have placed millions of lives at risk. The fact that it did not trigger a broader military clash does not diminish the seriousness of the conduct.
The court concluded that military resources were used not to safeguard national security but to manipulate it. These findings strike at the heart of democratic governance. In every constitutional democracy, civilian control of the military is justified by the assumption that elected leaders will employ force only in pursuit of legitimate national objectives. When military power is redirected toward personal ends, it erodes public confidence in the institutions upon which democratic governance depends.
The convictions of senior officials who were charged with participating in the operation offer a broader lesson. No democracy can function if public servants abandon their constitutional obligations in favor of loyalty to an individual leader. The armed forces belong to the nation. Their duty is to the constitution, not to the political whims of those temporarily entrusted with power. When officials become willing instruments of unlawful or improper directives, the safeguards of democratic order begin to fail.
Equally troubling is the persistence of political movements that continue to celebrate and defend Yoon despite the mounting legal judgments against him. Democratic societies rightly protect the freedom to support controversial leaders and unpopular causes. But citizenship also carries a responsibility to face facts and accept the rule of law. Political loyalty cannot become a substitute for civic judgment. When allegiance to a leader outweighs commitment to constitutional principles, democracy itself is placed at risk.
The question confronting Yoon's most ardent supporters is therefore a simple one: What exactly are they defending? Considering the court's findings, they are not defending conservatism, national security or democratic values. They are defending the misuse of military authority, manipulation of public fear and subordination of state institutions to personal political objectives. No democratic society should normalize such conduct, regardless of the ideology or popularity of the individual responsible.
Ultimately, this case transcends Yoon and his administration. It is about the enduring principle that no officeholder stands above the law. The extraordinary powers granted to a president — including command of the armed forces and emergency authorities — exist to preserve the nation, not to serve the interests of the person who occupies the office.
The court's ruling sends a message that should resonate far beyond South Korea. Democratic institutions survive only when power is constrained by law and when leaders are held accountable for its abuse. Whatever political divisions remain, the lesson of this verdict is clear: State power is a public trust, not a private possession. Any attempt to weaponize national security for personal political ends must be met with the firmest possible condemnation. Only then can democracy protect itself from those who would exploit its institutions for their own purposes.