Full transcript of Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment ruling

The Court will now render its decision in Case No. 2024Hun-Na8, concerning the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol.

▲ First, the Court will examine the procedural requirement.

① The Court will consider whether the declaration of martial law in this case is subject to judicial review. Given that the purpose of impeachment trials is to uphold constitutional order by addressing violations of the Constitution and law by high-ranking officials, the Court may review the constitutionality and legality of the martial law declaration, even if it is an act requiring a high degree of political discretion.

② The Court will consider whether the passage of the impeachment motion without an investigation by the National Assembly’s Judiciary Committee affects its validity. The Constitution delegates the impeachment procedure to the legislature, and the National Assembly Act grants the discretion in determining whether to conduct such an investigation by the Judiciary Committee. As such, the absence of an investigation by the Judiciary Committee does not render the impeachment motion invalid.

③ The Court will consider whether the passage of the impeachment motion in this case violates the principle of ne bis in idem. The National Assembly Act prohibits the resubmission of a rejected bill within the same session. While the first impeachment motion against the respondent during the 418th regular session failed to reach a vote, the impeachment motion, in this case, was introduced during the 419th provisional session. It, therefore, does not violate the principle of ne bis in idem.

Meanwhile, Justice Cheong Hyung-sik, in a concurring opinion, noted the need for legislation to limit the number of times impeachment motions can be introduced in different sessions.

④ The Court will examine whether the short duration of the martial law in this case and the absence of resulting harm constitute a lack of legally protected interest. Although the martial law was lifted, the grounds for impeachment had already arisen due to the martial law. Therefore, the benefit of the adjudication is not deemed negated.

⑤ The Court will examine the issue of including constitutional violations as the reason for the impeachment motion after it was filed initially based on criminal offenses such as insurrection under the criminal code. Since the basic facts remain unchanged, withdrawing or modifying the applicable legal provisions does not constitute a withdrawal or change of the grounds for impeachment and, therefore, does not require a special procedure for it to be permissible. The respondent argues that without the insurrection charge, the impeachment motion would not have met the required quorum. This claim, however, is hypothetical and lacks supporting evidence.

⑥ The Court will examine the claim that the impeachment power was abused to seize the office of the President. Since the impeachment motion was lawfully adopted and the respondent's constitutional or legal violations were substantiated sufficiently, it cannot be concluded that the impeachment power was abused.

The Court, therefore, finds the impeachment motion in this case valid. Meanwhile, regarding rules of evidence, there are concurring opinions by Justices Lee Mi-son and Kim Hyung-du that the rules on hearsay evidence can be relaxed in impeachment trials. Conversely, Justices Kim Bok-hyeong and Jo Han-chang said in a concurring opinion that the hearsay rule should be applied more strictly in future impeachment trials.

▲ Next, the Court will examine whether the respondent violated the Constitution or laws in the performance of their duties and whether the defendant's legal violations are serious enough to justify impeachment. The Court will review each of the grounds for impeachment.

① The Court will examine the declaration of martial law in this case. According to the Constitution and the Martial Law Act, one of the substantive requirements for declaring emergency martial law is that there must be a situation where a state of war, a state of emergency or a situation equivalent to it occurs, with the country being in a state of combat with the enemy or a severe disturbance of public order making it extremely difficult to perform administrative and judicial functions.

The respondent claims that a serious crisis arose due to the opposition-controlled National Assembly's unusual push for impeachment, the unilateral exercise of legislative power and attempts to cut the government budget.

From the time the respondent took office until the declaration of martial law in this case, the National Assembly proposed a total of 22 impeachments, including against the Minister of the Interior and Safety, prosecutors, the Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission and the Chair of the Board of Audit and Inspection. This raised concerns that the National Assembly had used the impeachment power as a political pressure tool against the government without considering the constitutionality or legality of the grounds for impeachment and based only on suspicions of legal violations.

However, at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case, impeachment procedures were only underway for one prosecutor and the Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission. The legislative bills the respondent claims were problematic, passed unilaterally by the opposition parties, had not taken effect, as the respondent had requested reconsideration or delayed their promulgation.

The 2025 budget proposal could not have had any impact on the situation at the time of the declaration of martial law, as the 2024 budget was being executed. Additionally, the National Assembly’s Special Committee on Budget and Accounts had made decisions on the budget proposal, but it had not been approved by the plenary session.

Therefore, the exercise of the National Assembly’s authority over impeachment motions, legislation and budget deliberations cannot be seen as having created a significant crisis situation at the time of the declaration of martial law.

Even if the exercise of the National Assembly’s authority was unlawful or unjust, it could be addressed through the usual exercise of power, such as the Constitutional Court’s impeachment procedures or by the defendant’s request for reconsideration of legislation, so the exercise of the emergency power by the state cannot be justified.

The respondent also claims that martial law was declared to resolve suspicions of electoral fraud.

However, simply having suspicions of electoral fraud does not mean that a serious crisis situation realistically occurred.

Furthermore, the National Election Commission announced that it had taken measures to address security vulnerabilities before the 22nd National Assembly election, including 24-hour public access to security camera footage of the storage places for early and absentee ballots and the introduction of a system for inspecting ballots during the counting process. Therefore, the defendant's claims lack grounds.

In conclusion, even considering all of the respondent’s claims, there is no objective justification for the respondent’s judgment that a crisis situation existed at the time of the declaration of martial law.

The Constitution and the Martial Law Act require that the substantive conditions for declaring an emergency martial law must involve "the need for military forces to respond to military necessity or to maintain public peace and order."

However, the political paralysis caused by the exercise of authority by the National Assembly or the suspicion of electoral fraud, as claimed by the respondent, are matters that should be resolved through political, institutional, or judicial means, not by mobilizing military forces.

The respondent argues that this martial law was a "warning martial law" or "appeal martial law" to inform the public of the opposition's overreach and the national crisis. However, this is not the purpose outlined by the Martial Law Act for declaring martial law.

Moreover, the respondent did not stop at declaring martial law but proceeded to deploy military and police forces to interfere with the National Assembly's exercise of its powers, which constitutes a violation of the Constitution and laws. Therefore, the respondent’s claim of a warning or appeal martial law cannot be accepted.

Thus, the declaration of martial law, in this case, did not meet the substantive requirements for declaring a state of emergency.

The Court will examine whether the declaration of martial law in this case complied with the procedural requirements.

The declaration of martial law and the appointment of a martial law commander must go through the deliberation of the Cabinet meeting.

The Court acknowledges that the respondent briefly explained the purpose of declaring martial law to the Prime Minister and nine other members of the Cabinet before declaring martial law.

However, the respondent did not explain the specific details of the martial law, including the martial law commander, and did not give other members the opportunity to express their opinions, making it difficult to conclude that proper deliberation occurred regarding the declaration of martial law.

Additionally, the respondent declared martial law without the agreement of the Prime Minister and relevant ministers, did not announce the implementation date, regions, or martial law commander, and did not promptly notify the National Assembly, thus violating the procedural requirements for declaring martial law as specified by the Constitution and Martial Law Act.

② The deployment of military and police forces to the National Assembly.

The respondent instructed the Minister of National Defense to deploy the military to the National Assembly. As a result, soldiers entered the grounds of the National Assembly using helicopters, and some broke windows to enter the main building.

The respondent gave orders to the commander of the Army Special Warfare Command and others, saying, "It seems the quorum for voting has not been met yet, so break the door and pull out the people inside."

Additionally, the respondent informed the commissioner general of the National Police Agency through the Martial Law Commander about the contents of the decree and even made six phone calls to the commissioner general.

In response, the commissioner general ordered a complete blockade of access to the National Assembly. As a result, some members of the National Assembly who were gathering were forced to climb over the walls or could not enter at all.

Meanwhile, the minister of national defense instructed the commander of the Defense Security Command to confirm the locations of 14 individuals, including the National Assembly speaker and the leaders of political parties, in case of possible arrest if needed.

The respondent called the first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) and instructed support for the Defense Security Command, which then asked the NIS to confirm the locations of these individuals.

In this way, by deploying military and police forces to control the access of National Assembly members to the Assembly compound and ordering their removal, the respondent obstructed the exercise of the National Assembly's authority, violating the constitutional provision granting the right to request the lifting of martial law and infringing on the deliberation, voting rights and immunity from arrest of the lawmakers.

Moreover, by participating in attempts to locate the leaders of various political parties, the respondent violated the freedom of political party activities.

By deploying military forces for political purposes to obstruct the exercise of the National Assembly's authority, the respondent caused soldiers, who serve the nation with a mission to ensure national security and defense, to confront ordinary people.

Thus, the respondent violated the political neutrality of the armed forces and the constitutional duty to command the military.

Constitutional Court justices attend the final ruling on President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment at the court in Seoul, Friday. Clockwise from top left are the court's acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae and Justices Lee Mi-son, Kim Hyung-du, Cheong Hyung-sik, Jung Kye-sun, Kim Bok-hyeong, Jung Jung-mi and Cho Han-chang. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chulConstitutional Court justices attend the final ruling on President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment at the court in Seoul, Friday. Clockwise from top left are the court's acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae and Justices Lee Mi-son, Kim Hyung-du, Cheong Hyung-sik, Jung Kye-sun, Kim Bok-hyeong, Jung Jung-mi and Cho Han-chang. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

③ The issuance of martial law decree in this case.

Through the declaration of this decree, the respondent violated constitutional provisions granting the National Assembly the right to request the lifting of martial law, provisions regarding political parties, and the principles of representative democracy and the separation of powers.

The respondent violated the constitutional and martial law provisions defining the conditions for limiting fundamental rights under a state of emergency and infringed on the political rights, collective action rights, and occupational freedoms of the people by disregarding the warrant-based investigation system.

④ Regarding the search and seizure of the National Election Commission (NEC)

The respondent instructed the minister of national defense to mobilize military forces to inspect the NEC’s IT systems.

As a result, the military forces deployed at the NEC’s office controlled access, seized the staff's mobile phones, and took photos of the IT systems.

These acts of conducting searches and seizures without a warrant violated the warrant-based system and infringed on the independence of the NEC.

⑤ Regarding attempts to locate legal professionals.

As aforementioned, the respondent participated in attempts to locate individuals for potential arrest if needed, including former chief justices and former Supreme Court justices who had recently retired.

This created pressure on sitting judges, making them aware that they could be targets for arrest by the executive branch at any time, thus infringing on the independence of the judiciary.

Now, the Court will examine whether the respondent's legal violations are serious enough to warrant impeachment.

The respondent declared martial law in an effort to resolve the confrontation with the National Assembly, deployed military and police forces to obstruct the exercise of constitutional powers by the National Assembly, thereby denying popular sovereignty and democracy, disregarded the constitutional structure of governance by deploying forces to search and seize the National Election Commission, and violated the basic rights of the people by issuing the decree.

These actions violated the fundamental principles of the rule of law and democracy, undermined the constitutional order, and seriously threatened the stability of the democratic republic.

The National Assembly's ability to swiftly pass a resolution to request the lifting of martial law was due to the resistance of the citizens and the passiveness of military officials and police from carrying out the order, so this does not influence the assessment of the seriousness of the respondent's legal violations.

The president's authority is granted by the Constitution. The respondent exceeded the limits set by the Constitution when exercising the emergency powers, which should be exercised with utmost caution, leading to distrust in the exercise of presidential authority.

Since the respondent's inauguration, opposition parties have led an unprecedented number of impeachment motions, causing the suspension of several high-ranking officials' authority during impeachment trials. Regarding the 2025 budget, for the first time in constitutional history, the National Assembly's Special Committee on Budget and Accounts voted solely for cuts without any increases, with the opposition party alone making the decision. Major policies established by the respondent could not be implemented due to opposition, and the opposition passed laws opposed by the government unilaterally, leading to repeated requests for reconsideration by the respondent and the National Assembly's passage of bills. In this process, the respondent likely felt a significant responsibility to resolve the political deadlock, viewing that the opposition's perceived overreach was paralyzing the government and severely harming national interests.

The respondent's judgment that the exercise of the National Assembly's authority was an abuse of power or caused a paralysis of government should be respected politically. However, the conflict between the respondent and the National Assembly cannot be attributed solely to one party, as it is a political issue that should be resolved according to the principles of democracy. The expression of political views or public decision-making regarding this matter must occur within the scope that harmonizes with the democracy guaranteed by the Constitution. The National Assembly should have respected minority opinions and worked toward a conclusion through dialogue and compromise based on tolerance and restraint in its relationship with the government. The respondent should also have respected the National Assembly, as the representative of the legislature, as a partner in governance. Nevertheless, the respondent excluded the National Assembly, which undermines the foundation of democratic politics and cannot be considered in harmony with democracy. Even if the respondent viewed the exercise of the National Assembly's authority as the tyranny of the majority, he should have ensured that checks and balances of power could be achieved through constitutional remedies.

The respondent had the opportunity to persuade the people to lead the government in the general elections for the National Assembly that took place about two years after his inauguration. Even if the outcome did not align with the respondent's intentions, he should not have attempted to exclude the will of the people who supported the opposition parties.

Nevertheless, the respondent violated the Constitution and laws by declaring a state of emergency in this case, thereby recreating a history of the abuse of national emergency powers, shocking the people and causing chaos in all areas of society, the economy, politics, and diplomacy.

As the president of all the people, the respondent violated his duty to unite the society, transcending his support base. Through mobilization of the military and police that undermined the authority of constitutional bodies such as the National Assembly and infringed upon the basic human rights of the people, he abandoned his duty to protect the Constitution and severely betrayed the trust of the people of the Republic of Korea, the sovereign citizens of a democratic republic.

Ultimately, the respondent's unconstitutional and unlawful actions constitute a serious violation of the law that betrays the trust of the people and cannot be tolerated from the perspective of protecting the Constitution.

Because the respondent's illegal actions and their consequent effects have had a significant negative impact on the constitutional order, it is recognized that the benefits of protecting the Constitution by removing the respondent outweigh the national losses that would result from the president's dismissal.

Therefore, the Court delivers its ruling with the unanimous concurrence of all justices.

As this is an impeachment case, I will confirm the time of the ruling. The current time is 11:22 a.m.

Order: The respondent, President Yoon Suk Yeol, is hereby removed from office.

This concludes the Court’s ruling.