Magyar 
English An analysis on the current South Korean political scene by Dr. Bora Park, director of the Hybrid Threats Research Centre of INSS, guest researcher of the Institute for the Research of Communism.
Timelapse of Martial Law and Impeachment of President Yoon
Impeachment of President YOON Suk Yeol started by his announcement of emergent martial law on December 3, 2024. President Yoon proclaimed the emergent martial law to protect the country from "anti-state" forces that sympathized with North Korea. Less than two hours after his declaration, lawmakers gathered at the National Assembly and voted to block it, making President Yoon lift the martial law around 4:30 in the next morning. Six opposition parties including Democratic Party proposed impeachment against President Yoon on December 4th, but they failed to pass it due to the lack of quorum. A week after the first attempt, the opposition parties proposed the impeachment resolution again and the National Assembly approved the resolution with 204 votes in favor out of 300 votes. President Yoon was impeached by National Assembly and suspended from his duties on December 14th.
At the first proposal of impeachment resolution, Yoon apologized for declaring martial law and bringing political chaos to the country. However, it was 5 days after his apologies that he claimed that the right to declare martial law is not the subject of judicial decision and that he would fight against the impeachment and investigation. This brought changes into the ruling party, voting for impeachment. Once the impeachment resolution is approved in the National Assembly, it is supposed to be delivered to the Presidential Office. As soon as the Presidential Office receives the impeachment resolution, the president is suspended, and the prime minister would take over the power as an acting president.
Background of President Yoon’s Emergency Martial Law
President Yoon’s emergency martial law was 45 years after the assassination of former President PARK Chung-Hee and it is the first martial law after the 1987 democratic movement. President Yoon stated that he “declared the emergency martial law to protect Korea from the North Korea’s threats and to eradicate the anti-state forces who have plundered Korean citizens’ freedom and happiness.”. He also mentioned the purpose of the martial law is “to protect the free constitutional order.”
Even though President Yoon stated national security and threats from North Korea as the background of the martial law, it soon reveled that President Yoon chose the extremist measure to respond his political failure. Attorneys from President Yoon’s side insist that martial law be needed to investigate the general election fraud now, and his extreme supporters uses the campaign phrase, “Stop the Steal” in protests and even in Seoul Western District Court Riot (01/19/2025). Far-right extremists Youtubers have made some videos about election fraud since the ruling party lost at the last general election. For this reason, some say President Yoon is the very first president who was inspired by the far-right extremist videos to declare martial law.
Previous Declaration of Martial Law in Korean History
Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion (10/25/1948 ~ 02/05/1949)
Jeju Uprising and Massacre (11/17/1948 ~ 12/31/1948)
Korean War (07/08/1950 ~ 04/07/1952)
Busan Political Crisis (05/25/1952 ~ 07/28/1952)
4.19 Revolution (04/19/1960 ~ 06/07/1960)
5.16 Military Coup (05/16/1961 ~ 12/05/1962)
6.13 Democratic Uprising (06/03/1964 ~ 07/29/1964)
October Yushin (Restoration) (10/17/1972 ~ 12/13/1972)
Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising (10/17/1972 ~ 12/13/1972)
Assassination of President PARK Chung-Hee (10/27/1979 ~ 01/24/1981)
President Yoon’s Emergency Martial Law (12/03/2024 ~ 12/04/2024)
Who is acting president now?
Prime Minster HAN Duck-soo took the role as an acting president, however, a total of 192 lawmakers voted for his impeachment two weeks after President Yoon’s impeachment. Prime Minister Han was supposed to lead South Korea out of its political turmoil, but the opposition parties argued that he was refusing demands to complete Yoon’s impeachment. For instance, he refused to appoint three new members of Constitutional Judge. Since three members of the constitutional judge retired last October and it is stipulated that at least six members of the constitutional judge must be in favor of the impeachment resolution. That is, all the members should agree with the impeachment resolution if the acting president doesn’t appoint new members. It is stipulated that the fixed number of constitutional judge is nine in the law. After the impeachment of Prime Minister Han, Finance Minister CHOI Sang-mok is the acting president and acting prime minister since December 27th, 2024. He appointed two new members of constitutional judge on December 31st, 2024. The Constitutional Court will decide whether acting president Choi should appoint the last member of the constitutional judge on February 3rd after the lunar new year holidays (January 27th - 30th).
Comparison of Previous Impeachment Resolutions against Presidents
Impeachment against president is not the first time in Korea. The first impeachment resolution was approved by the National Assembly in 2003. Former President ROH Moo-hyun (the 16th President of Korea) was impeached due to his charges of violation of election law. However, his charge was not confirmed by the investigation. The Constitutional Court did not accept the impeachment resolution against former president Roh, and he officially came back to his office. The second impeachment resolution was in 2017. The former president PARK Geun-hye (the 18th President of Korea) was impeached due to her charges of violation in Constitutions. The Constitution Court accepted the impeachment resolution and Korea had an early presidential election in May 2017. Mr. MOON Jae-in was elected the 19th President from the election. Former President Park was also charged with bribery, resulting in a sentence of 20 years in prison. She was pardoned in 2022 after serving her sentence - 4 years and 9 months - in prison.
Ongoing Controversies on President Yoon’s Case
Meanwhile, the debate on which investigative organization has the investigate authority for President Yoon’s charges, including his sympathizers in martial law. Though the root of Korean criminal justice system dated back to the German system, (FYI: The Japanese Empire introduced their system to Korea for the colonial domination (1910-1945). Japan adopted German system for their own as a part of Meiji Restoration.), its system is not the same as the German’s. The prosecutors’ office has had more power in investigative authority compared to other investigative organizations, which brought imbalances in power between the investigative authorities and raised the need for judicial reform.
MOON Jae-in Administration, the former of YOON Suk Yeol Administration, made a reform by revising the criminal procedure act in 2021, limiting the prosecutor’s office investigative authority only in six types of major crimes: corruption, economic crime, crimes against elections, defense industry, catastrophic disaster, and crimes related to the government officials. In addition, Moon Administration established a special investigation unit, Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). CIO is in the center of ongoing controversies in investigating President Yoon’s charges as treason.
President Yoon is subject of investigation for treason, separated from Constitutional Court trial. The police, the prosecutors’ office and CIO are leading authorities in investigation of President Yoon as charges of treason. CIO requested the police and the prosecutors’ office for investigative authority in President Yoon’s case, however, CIO showed its limitation in President Yoon’s arrest. President Yoon was arrested after he refused to attend CIO’s investigation three times. Seoul Western District Court issued his arrest warrant, which explicitly pointed out that President Yoon shall not resist his arrest based on official and military secret. President Yoon and Secret Service had refused to cooperate with CIO’s request for collecting evidence, arguing it is official and military secret before his arrest. Another controversary over President Yoon’s case is whether CIO has the authority to indict the president. CIO has the indictment authority for judges, prosecutors, high ranking police officers but not for the ministers, lawmakers and president. CIO can investigate the ministers, lawmakers and president, though.
What’s Next?
The Constitutional Court began President Yoon’s impeachment trial and held 4th hearings so far. The Constitutional Court shall conclude all the hearings within 180 days from the day when the Court accepts the impeachment resolution and shall pass the sentence. Technically, the Court shall decide until June 11th as President Yoon’s case was accepted on December 14th. However, it is expected that the Court decision will be passed earlier than June 11th. Considering previous impeachment trials of former President ROH Moo-hyun (2003) and former President PARK Geun-hye (2017), the Court decisions were made within two or three months. In addition, as President Yoon is suspended from his office, the crisis has hit the country's economy, with the won weakening and global credit rating agencies warning of weakening consumer and business sentiment. Ongoing political uncertainty and instability will worsen the situation, it is highly likely for the Court to make decisions before June. However, as President Yoon is under police/prosecutors’ investigation of treason charges, the attorneys from President Yoon may request to pause the impeachment trial, extending his trial longer than 180 days. This is one of options for President Yoon.
If six members of the constitutional judge agree to accept the impeachment resolution, President Yoon will be officially removed from his office. In that case, early presidential election will be held within 60 days. If the number of members who agree to accept the impeachment, President Yoon will come back to his office, officially. Now, it is the time for the Constitutional Court.
back
