South Korea sentences ex-president Yoon Suk Yeol to life for insurrection

Images

×

A TV screen broadcasting a news report on the sentencing trial of former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol's insurrection case, in Seoul, on Thursday. japantimes.co.jp

A solar farm in Nakai, Kanagawa Prefecture, in March 2016. Japan gets about a tenth of its electricity from solar panels despite having nearly no domestic production of photovoltaics (PVs). japantimes.co.jp

Sonic the Hedgehog, Castlevania's Alucard and the weak yet lovable Slime from Dragon Quest are just some of Japan's iconic gaming franchises celebrating midlife anniversaries in 2026. japantimes.co.jp

Japan agency aims for both decarbonization, growth japantimes.co.jp

South Korea sentences ex-president Yoon to life in prison for 2024 insurrection france24.com

‹ ›

A South Korean court has sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison for “masterminding an insurrection” and abusing authority, a verdict tied to his failed December 2024 attempt to impose martial law. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty, underscoring how Seoul’s political class has decided that the proper punishment for a constitutional stress test is not merely removal from office, but permanent incapacitation, according to Reuters reporting carried by The Japan Times.

The ruling lands after a period of institutional whiplash: Yoon was ousted, prosecuted, and now convicted in a case that prosecutors framed as an “unconstitutional and illegal emergency martial law” that “undermined the function of the National Assembly and the Election Commission” and aimed at “destroying the liberal democratic constitutional order,” The Japan Times reports. France 24 likewise describes the conviction as stemming from Yoon’s alleged leadership of an “insurrection” via the martial-law move.

Time notes that the case has been watched closely in a deeply divided country, with the state insisting it is defending democracy against an executive’s attempt to suspend it. Democracies often justify extraordinary coercion as self-defense, and then keep the tools polished for the next crisis.

The most revealing feature is not that a head of government can be punished—accountability is good—but how quickly “emergency” governance becomes a normal political option, and how readily the legal system expands to treat political overreach as something closer to treason than malpractice. If a president can attempt martial law, the real question is why the legal and security architecture allowed the attempt to be operationally plausible in the first place.

South Korea’s institutions have now demonstrated two capabilities at once: (1) they can remove and imprison a leader who tries to rule by decree; (2) they can normalize the idea that, when politics turns existential, the state may reach for maximal penalties and maximal legal theories. Today that machinery is pointed at a disgraced conservative populist; tomorrow it can be pointed at whoever becomes convenient to label an “insurrectionist.”

The precedent will shape future presidents’ incentives. A would-be strongman may conclude that half-measures are suicidal—if you fail, you don’t retire to a think tank; you die in prison. Meanwhile, establishment factions may learn that criminal law is an efficient way to settle what used to be settled at the ballot box.

South Korea may be proving its “democratic resilience,” as Reuters puts it. It is also—quietly—writing a user manual for how a modern state disciplines its own leaders when the emergency powers they keep on the shelf are taken down and actually used.