“Currently 65 years old”… The meaning of sentencing Yoon Suk-yeol to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty - 경향신문
This article was translated by an AI tool. Feedback Here.
Line (Contexts): Insurrection is established, but was the ‘warning-purpose’ argument considered in sentencing?
Plane (Perspectives): Historical reckoning, or mechanical sentencing?
Former President Yoon Suk-yeol, released following the court decision titled ‘Cancellation of Detention,’ arrives near the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of March 8 last year, steps out of a security vehicle, and greets supporters. Lee Jun-heon, reporter
Former President Yoon Suk-yeol was sentenced to life imprisonment yesterday (the 19th) in the first-instance trial on charges of being the ringleader of an insurrection. The bench found Yoon guilty, but among the statutory penalties for the chargelimited to death·life imprisonment (with labor)·life imprisonment (without labor)it imposed life imprisonment. The sentence reflected considerations such as restraint in the use of physical force·first offense·service in public office·advanced age. The governing bloc and civil society pushed back, calling it “mechanical sentencing.” Today, Dot-Line-Plane summarizes the content and meaning of the former president’s first-instance sentence.
The 25th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon) yesterday sentenced former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was indicted as the ringleader of an insurrection, to life imprisonment. As reasons for sentencing, the court cited the occurrence of “harm so great it cannot be calculated,” including undermining of democracy·decline in the standing of the Republic of Korea·political polarization·erosion of trust in numerous public officials. Taking into account that he is a first-time offender·of advanced age·and served in public office, the court imposed life imprisonment, which is lower than the death penalty that the special counsel had requested on the 13th of last month. In court, Yoon appeared dejected at the outcome.
Former President Yoon Suk-yeol smiles as he appears for the first-instance sentencing hearing on charges of being the ringleader of an insurrection related to the 12·3 emergency martial law at the Seoul Central District Court on the 19th. Provided by the Seoul Central District Court
Line (Contexts): Insurrection is established, but was the ‘warning-purpose’ logic considered?
What stands out is that the court confirmed that “the 12·3 martial law was an insurrection.” The court held, “If the proclamation of emergency martial law infringes the powers of the National Assembly·the executive·the judiciary, the crime of insurrection with the purpose of subverting the constitutional order can be established.” It also made clear that the charge of being the ringleader of an insurrection is established, stating, “It is difficult to deny that Yoon harbored the intent to paralyze the National Assembly so that for a considerable period it could not properly perform its functions. It is also acknowledged that he sent in the military and triggered a riot.”
Behind the court’s determination that the martial law constituted insurrection were statements from key military and intelligence witnesses who were on the execution line for the insurrection. In particular, Gwak Jong-geun, former Army Special Warfare Commander, and Hong Jang-won, former First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service, stated that they received “orders to arrest politicians” from former President Yoon. As the two maintained consistent testimony throughout the trial, Yoon sought to undermine their credibility by questioning their memory or nitpicking. The court found their testimony credible.
However, the sentence was life imprisonment rather than the maximum penalty of death. The court stated, “There are circumstances showing that (former President Yoon) sought to restrain the use of physical force to the greatest extent possible. Most of the plans ended in failure,” and it took into account for sentencing Yoon’s side’s argument of a ‘warning-purpose martial law.’ It also applied the fact that “prior to this offense he had no criminal record, he served for a long period as a public official, and he is currently 65 years old, a comparatively advanced age.”
Senior figures indicted for performing important duties in the insurrection also received heavy sentences, though lower than what the special counsel had sought. Former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun was sentenced to 30 years in prison (the special counsel had sought life imprisonment), former Defense Intelligence Command Commander No Sang-won to 18 years (30 years sought), former National Police Agency Commissioner Cho Ji-ho to 12 years (20 years sought), former Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Commissioner Kim Bong-sik to 10 years (15 years sought), and former Chief of the National Assembly Guard Unit Mok Hyun-tae to 3 years (12 years sought). Some defendants were acquitted for lack of evidence, among other reasons.
Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon of the 25th Criminal Division at the Seoul Central District Court reads the ruling at the first-instance sentencing hearing for former President Yoon Suk-yeol on charges of being the ringleader of an insurrection, held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu on the 19th. Provided by the Seoul Central District Court
Plane (Perspectives): Historical reckoning, or mechanical sentencing?
Across the political spectrum, there was a shared view that it was significant for the court to recognize the 12·3 martial law as an insurrection. Within the governing camp, however, some criticized the fact that the death penalty was not imposed, questioning whether it is apprpriate to reduce the sentence mechanically given the gravity of the matter. On Facebook, Democratic Party lawmaker Park Ju-min pointedly asked, “If successful insurrections go unpunished and failed insurrections are given reduced sentences, how on earth are we to properly punish insurrection?” There was also criticism that Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon was biased when he decided last March to cancel the detention of former President Yoon.
Civil society groups evaluated the life sentence as a historical condemnation yet voiced disappointment with the length of the sentence. Kim Hu-ju (38), a female farmer, said, “I thought that at last citizens could return to daily life,” while adding, “Because insurrection is a crime that shakes the foundations of democracy, a sterner judgment is needed on appeal.” People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and others also emphasized that the failure of the martial law should not be attributed to Yoon’s intent but rather to the actions of citizens.
Both the special counsel and former President Yoon’s side expressed disappointment. Deputy Special Counsel Jang Woo-sung said immediately after the ruling, “It was a meaningful judgment,” but added, “There is considerable disappointment regarding fact-finding and sentencing.” Earlier, the special counsel had argued, “In the criminal justice of the Republic of Korea, the death penalty functions as the embodiment, through adjudication, of the community’s will to respond to crime and of the trust placed in that will.”
By contrast, former President Yoon’s side reacted strongly, saying, “We expected justice to stand, but the judiciary has knelt to political power.” In a statement issued immediately after the ruling, Yoon’s defense team argued, “(The proclamation of unlawful martial law) was the president’s decision to set right a Republic of Korea in crisis, yet (the court) ignored this.” They said the decision on whether to appeal would be made after discussion.
Despite the judiciary’s determination that “the 12·3 martial law was an insurrection” and foreign media’s assessment that it was “an event that closes a chapter in one of Korea’s greatest political crises,” reactions to the sentence were divided. The debate will likely continue into the appellate stage if both the special counsel and Yoon appeal. Under the Special Counsel Act on Insurrection, the appellate judgment is due by May. What ruling would establish justice and remedy the harm suffered by the public? Attention is turning to the insurrection-dedicated panel of the Seoul High Court, launched to handle such cases.
“Even when looking at a single thing, do so three-dimensionally” is the slogan of the Kyunghyang Shinmun newsletter <Dot-Line-Plane>. We analyze issues worth considering in dot (facts), line (contexts), and plane (perspectives) to present a multi-layered view. Spend 10 minutes each day at 7 a.m. (MonFri) reading <Dot-Line-Plane> to build your ‘muscles of thought.’
