SEOUL — Former South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol publicly expressed regret on Friday for his controversial decision to impose martial law in December 2024 — a move that led a Seoul court to sentence him to life imprisonment for rebellion and undermining constitutional order. While acknowledging the hardship caused to citizens, Yoon reiterated that his intent was to protect the nation.
Yoon’s Apology and Defiant Rationale
In a statement delivered by his legal team, Yoon apologised to the public for the “frustration and hardship” brought about by his actions, saying his choice was motivated by a desire to safeguard the country and its people. However, he also criticised the court’s findings and maintained his belief that the declaration of martial law was a necessary response to political turmoil at the time.
Even as he expressed remorse, Yoon questioned the independence of the judiciary and hinted at doubts about the appeal process ahead, though his lawyers clarified that his comments were emotional rather than a formal decision on legal strategy.
Legal Judgment and Political Fallout
A Seoul Central District Court convicted Yoon of leading an attempted insurrection when he ordered the brief imposition of martial law — a dramatic constitutional breach that saw troops mobilised and legislature operations blocked before lawmakers overturned it within hours. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty, underscoring the severity of the charges, but the court opted for life imprisonment, citing precedent and legal standards.
The ruling has deepened political divisions across South Korea. Leaders from the Democratic Party sharply criticised the sentence as insufficient, while conservative figures grapple with distancing themselves from Yoon’s legacy. Parliamentary officials also urged Yoon to take responsibility for the crisis and publicly apologise, amplifying pressure on conservative ranks.
What’s Next: Appeals and National Impact
Yoon retains the right to appeal the verdict within seven days, and his legal team has indicated they may challenge certain legal interpretations in higher courts. The unprecedented nature of the case has sparked intense debate about presidential authority, democratic safeguards, and judicial fairness.
South Korea’s political landscape continues to process one of the nation’s most consequential leadership reckonings in decades, reflecting broad tensions between executive ambition and constitutional restraint.
