Iimpeachment Case Against President Yoon Seok-yeol

We shall now commence the pronouncement of the judgment in the 2024 Heonna-Na 8 impeachment case against President Yoon Seok-yeol.

First, we will examine the requirements for admissibility.

➀ We will first consider whether the declaration of martial law in this case is subject to judicial review.

Considering the purpose of impeachment proceedings, which is to safeguard the constitutional order from violations of the Constitution and laws by high-ranking public officials, even if the declaration of martial law in this case involved a highly political decision, its constitutionality and legality are subject to review.

➁ We will next consider the point that the impeachment motion in this case was passed without an investigation by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee.

The Constitution entrusts the impeachment procedure of the National Assembly to legislation, and the National Assembly Act stipulates that whether or not to conduct an investigation by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee is at the discretion of the National Assembly. Therefore, the absence of an investigation by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee does not render the impeachment resolution unlawful.

➂ We will now consider whether the passage of the impeachment motion in this case violates the principle of res judicata.

The National Assembly Act stipulates that a motion that has been rejected cannot be reintroduced during the same session. Although the first impeachment motion against the respondent failed to be put to a vote during the 418th regular session, the impeachment motion in this case was introduced during the 419th extraordinary session. Therefore, it does not violate the principle of res judicata.

Meanwhile, there is a supplementary opinion from Justice Jeong Hyeong-sik stating that legislation is needed to limit the number of times an impeachment motion can be introduced even in different sessions.

➃ We will next consider whether the short duration of the martial law in this case and the absence of resulting damages constitute a lack of protected legal interest.

Even though the martial law in this case has been lifted, the grounds for impeachment in this case have already arisen due to the martial law. Therefore, it cannot be said that the interest in adjudication is negated.

➄ We will now consider the point that the impeachment claim, which initially consisted of violations of criminal law such as insurrection in the indictment, was subsequently framed as violations of the Constitution after the filing of the impeachment trial request.

Withdrawing or changing the applicable legal provisions while maintaining the fundamental factual basis does not constitute a withdrawal or change of the grounds for prosecution and is therefore permissible without requiring special procedures.

The respondent also argues that the quorum for the resolution would not have been met if the insurrection-related parts had been absent from the grounds for prosecution. However, this is merely a hypothetical argument and lacks objective supporting evidence.

➅ We will now consider the argument that the impeachment power was abused to usurp the President's position.

As the process of passing the impeachment motion in this case was lawful, and the respondent's violation of the Constitution or laws has been substantiated to a certain degree, it cannot be deemed that the impeachment power was abused.

Therefore, the impeachment trial request in this case is admissible.

Meanwhile, regarding the rules of evidence, there are supplementary opinions: from Justices Lee Mi-seon and Kim Hyeong-du stating that the hearsay rule under the Criminal Procedure Act can be relaxed in impeachment proceedings, and from Justices Kim Bok-hyung and Cho Han-chang stating that the hearsay rule needs to be applied more strictly in future impeachment proceedings.

Next, we will examine whether the respondent violated the Constitution or laws in the execution of their duties, and whether the respondent's illegal acts are serious enough to warrant their removal from office.

First, we will examine each ground for prosecution.

① We will first consider the declaration of martial law in this case.

According to the Constitution and the Martial Law Act, one of the substantive requirements for the declaration of a state of extraordinary martial law is that 'a state of war, armed conflict, or a national emergency of comparable gravity must have actually occurred, wherein a state of engagement with the enemy exists or public order is extremely disturbed, rendering the performance of administrative and judicial functions manifestly difficult.'

The respondent claims that such a grave crisis situation arose due to the opposition party, which holds a majority of seats in the National Assembly, pursuing an unprecedented impeachment, unilaterally exercising legislative power, and attempting to cut the budget, among other acts of tyranny.

Since the respondent's inauguration and before the declaration of martial law in this case, the National Assembly has initiated a total of 22 impeachment motions against the Minister of the Interior and Safety, prosecutors, the Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, and the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection. This has raised concerns that the National Assembly is using the impeachment system as a tool for political pressure against the government, based solely on allegations of legal violations without due consideration of the constitutionality and legality of the grounds for impeachment.

However, at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case, impeachment proceedings were underway only against one prosecutor and the Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission.

The bills that the respondent claims were unilaterally passed by the opposition party and are problematic were in a state where their effect had not yet occurred because the respondent had demanded reconsideration or withheld promulgation.

The budget for 2025 could not have affected the situation at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case, as the 2024 budget was being executed, and regarding the 2025 budget, there was only a resolution by the National Assembly's Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, not by the plenary session.

Therefore, the exercise of powers by the National Assembly, such as impeachment, legislation, and budget deliberation, cannot be seen as having actually caused a grave crisis situation at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case.

Even if the exercise of powers by the National Assembly is illegal or unjust, it can be addressed through ordinary methods of exercising power, such as impeachment trials by the Constitutional Court and the respondent's demand for reconsideration of bills, and thus cannot justify the exercise of state emergency powers.

The respondent also claims to have declared martial law in this case to resolve allegations of election fraud. However, the mere existence of allegations cannot be seen as an actual occurrence of a grave crisis situation.

Furthermore, the National Election Commission announced that most security vulnerabilities had been addressed before the 22nd National Assembly elections, and measures such as 24-hour public disclosure of CCTV footage of early and mail-in ballot storage locations and the introduction of a manual counting system in the vote counting process were put in place. In light of this, the respondent's claim cannot be considered valid.

Ultimately, even considering all the circumstances claimed by the respondent, a crisis situation sufficient to objectively justify the respondent's judgment did not exist at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case.

The Constitution and the Martial Law Act require, as a substantive condition for the declaration of a state of extraordinary martial law, that 'there must be a need and purpose to respond to military necessity with troops or to maintain public peace and order.'

However, the state of paralysis of state affairs or allegations of election fraud claimed by the respondent due to the exercise of powers by the National Assembly are issues that should be resolved through political, institutional, and judicial means, not by mobilizing troops.

The respondent claims that the martial law in this case was a 'warning martial law' or an 'appeal martial law' to inform the public of the opposition party's tyranny and the crisis situation of state affairs, but this is not the purpose of declaring martial law as stipulated by the Martial Law Act.

Furthermore, the respondent did not stop at declaring martial law but proceeded to commit violations of the Constitution and laws, such as mobilizing military and police forces to obstruct the exercise of powers by the National Assembly. Therefore, the respondent's claim of a warning or appeal martial law cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the declaration of martial law in this case violated the substantive requirements for the declaration of a state of extraordinary martial law.

Next, we will consider whether the declaration of martial law in this case complied with procedural requirements.

The declaration of martial law and the appointment of the martial law commander must be deliberated by the State Council.

It is acknowledged that the respondent briefly explained the purpose of the declaration of martial law to the Prime Minister and nine other State Council members immediately before declaring martial law in this case.

However, considering that the respondent did not explain the specific details of the martial law in this case, such as the martial law commander, and did not provide other members with an opportunity to express their opinions, it is difficult to consider that deliberation on the declaration of martial law in this case took place.

In addition, the respondent declared martial law in this case even though the Prime Minister and relevant State Council members did not countersign the proclamation of extraordinary martial law, did not announce the date and time of enforcement, the enforcement area, and the martial law commander, and did not promptly notify the National Assembly. Therefore, the procedural requirements for the declaration of extraordinary martial law stipulated by the Constitution and the Martial Law Act were violated.

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

The respondent instructed the Minister of National Defense to deploy troops to the National Assembly.

Accordingly, soldiers entered the National Assembly compound using helicopters and other means, and some broke windows and entered the main building.

The respondent gave instructions to the Commander of the Army Special Warfare Command, etc., such as 'It seems the quorum for the resolution has not been met, so break down the doors and drag out the people inside.'

The respondent also informed the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency of the contents of the proclamation in this case through the martial law commander and also made six direct phone calls. In response, the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency ordered a complete blockade of access to the National Assembly.

As a result, some of the National Assembly members who were gathering at the National Assembly had to climb over walls or were unable to 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 Speaker of the National Assembly and representatives of each political party, for the purpose of arrest if necessary. The respondent called the First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service and instructed them to support the Defense Security Command, and the Commander of the Defense Security Command requested the First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service to confirm the locations of the aforementioned individuals.

As such, the respondent obstructed the exercise of powers by the National Assembly by deploying military and police forces to control the entry of National Assembly members into the National Assembly and by instructing them to be dragged out, thereby violating the constitutional provision granting the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law and infringing upon the deliberation and voting rights and the privilege against arrest of National Assembly members.

Furthermore, by being involved in the attempts to confirm the locations of the representatives of each political party, the respondent infringed upon the freedom of political party activities.

By deploying troops for political purposes, such as preventing the exercise of powers by the National Assembly, the respondent caused soldiers, who have served the nation with the mission of ensuring national security and defending the territory, to confront ordinary citizens.

In doing so, the respondent violated the political neutrality of the armed forces and the duty of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces under the Constitution.

③ Regarding the issuance of the proclamation in this case.

By prohibiting the activities of the National Assembly, local councils, and political parties through the proclamation in this case, the respondent violated the constitutional provision granting the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law, the constitutional provision stipulating the political party system, and the principles of representative democracy and separation of powers.

By violating the constitutional and Martial Law Act provisions stipulating the requirements for restricting fundamental rights under a state of extraordinary martial law and the warrant requirement, the respondent infringed upon the people's fundamental political rights, the right to collective action, and the freedom of occupation.

④ Regarding the search and seizure of the National Election Commission.

The respondent instructed the Minister of National Defense to mobilize troops to inspect the National Election Commission's computer system. Accordingly, troops deployed to the National Election Commission building controlled access, confiscated the mobile phones of on-duty personnel, and photographed the computer system.

This constitutes a violation of the warrant requirement by conducting a search and seizure of the National Election Commission without a warrant and an infringement upon the independence of the National Election Commission.

⑤ Regarding the attempts to ascertain the whereabouts of legal professionals.

As mentioned earlier, the respondent was involved in attempts to ascertain the whereabouts of individuals for the purpose of arrest if necessary, and the targets included a former Chief Justice and a former Justice of the Supreme Court who had recently retired.

This exerts pressure on incumbent judges, making them feel that they could be subject to arrest by the executive branch at any time, thereby infringing upon the independence of the judiciary.

We will now consider whether the respondent's illegal acts examined thus far are serious enough to warrant the respondent's removal from office.

The respondent declared martial law in this case with the aim of resolving the confrontational situation with the National Assembly and subsequently deployed military and police forces to obstruct the National Assembly's exercise of its constitutional powers, thereby denying national sovereignty and democracy. The respondent also disregarded the governing structure stipulated by the Constitution by deploying troops to search and seize the National Election Commission and extensively infringed upon the people's fundamental rights by issuing the proclamation in this case. These acts violate the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the democratic state, thereby infringing upon the constitutional order itself and posing a serious threat to the stability of the democratic republic.

Meanwhile, the fact that the National Assembly was able to promptly pass a resolution demanding the lifting of the state of extraordinary martial law was due to the resistance of citizens and the passive performance of duties by the military and police forces. Therefore, this does not affect the assessment of the gravity of the respondent's legal violations.

The powers of the President are granted solely by the Constitution. The respondent exercised the state emergency powers, which should be exercised with the utmost caution, beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution, thereby causing distrust in the exercise of presidential powers.

Since the respondent's inauguration, the powers of several high-ranking public officials have been suspended during impeachment trials due to an unprecedented number of impeachment motions initiated by the opposition party.

Regarding the 2025 budget, the National Assembly's Special Committee on Budget and Accounts unilaterally passed a resolution to reduce the budget without any increase, which is unprecedented in constitutional history.

Major policies established by the respondent could not be implemented due to opposition from the opposition party, and the opposition party unilaterally passed bills opposed by the government, leading to repeated demands for reconsideration by the respondent and resolutions on bills by the National Assembly.

In this process, the respondent likely felt a heavy sense of responsibility to somehow overcome the situation, recognizing that state affairs were being paralyzed and national interests were being significantly harmed due to the opposition party's tyranny.

The respondent's judgment that the National Assembly's exercise of powers constituted an abuse of power or an act that would paralyze state affairs should be politically respected.

However, the conflict that arose between the respondent and the National Assembly cannot be attributed to the responsibility of one side alone, and it is a matter of politics that should be resolved in accordance with the principles of democracy. The expression of political opinions and public decision-making regarding this matter should be carried out within the scope that is harmonious with democracy guaranteed by the Constitution.

The National Assembly should have respected minority opinions and made efforts to reach conclusions through dialogue and compromise with the government, based on tolerance and restraint in their relationship.

The respondent should also have respected the National Assembly, the representatives of the people, as an object of cooperation.

Nevertheless, the respondent treated the National Assembly as an object of exclusion, which undermines the premise of democratic politics and cannot be seen as harmonious with democracy. Even if the respondent judged the National Assembly's exercise of powers as the tyranny of the majority, the respondent should have ensured that checks and balances could be realized through the remedies предусмотренные by the Constitution.

The respondent had an opportunity to persuade the people to allow the respondent to lead state affairs in the National Assembly elections held approximately two years after the respondent's inauguration. Even if the result did not align with the respondent's intentions, attempts to exclude the will of the people who supported the opposition party should not have been made.

Nevertheless, by violating the Constitution and laws and declaring martial law in this case, the respondent repeated the history of abuse of state emergency powers, shocking the people and causing chaos in all areas of society, economy, politics, and diplomacy.

The respondent violated the duty to integrate the social community, transcending the people who support the respondent, as the President of all the people.

By undermining the powers of constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly and infringing upon the fundamental human rights of the people by mobilizing military and police forces, the respondent abandoned the duty to protect the Constitution and seriously betrayed the trust of the people of the Republic of Korea, who are the sovereign of the democratic republic.

Ultimately, the respondent's unconstitutional and illegal acts constitute a serious violation of the law that cannot be tolerated from the perspective of protecting the Constitution, as they betrayed the trust of the people.

The negative impact and ripple effects of the respondent's illegal acts on the constitutional order are significant. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the benefit of protecting the Constitution obtained by removing the respondent from office overwhelmingly outweighs the national loss resulting from the President's impeachment.

Accordingly, we pronounce the order with the unanimous opinion of all justices.

As this is an impeachment case, we will confirm the time of pronouncement. The current time is 11:22 AM.

Order: The respondent, President Yoon Seok-yeol, is hereby dismissed from office.

This concludes the pronouncement.