We now begin the ruling on Constitutional Case 2024Hun-Na8: The impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol.
First, we will examine the issue of procedural legitimacy.
➀ Whether the declaration of martial law in this case is subject to judicial review:
Considering the purpose of impeachment trials—to protect constitutional order from constitutional and legal violations by high-ranking public officials—even if the declaration of martial law in this case involved a high-level political decision, the court can still review whether it violated the Constitution and the law.
➁ On the issue of the National Assembly passing the impeachment motion without investigation by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee:
The Constitution entrusts the impeachment process to legislative discretion, and the National Assembly Act leaves committee investigation to the Assembly’s own judgment. Therefore, the lack of investigation by the Judiciary Committee does not render the impeachment motion unlawful.
➂ Whether the impeachment motion violates the principle of res judicata (non-repetition of decisions):
The National Assembly Act prohibits reintroducing a rejected proposal within the same session. While the first impeachment motion against the respondent failed to reach a vote during the 418th regular session, the current motion was introduced during the 419th extraordinary session. Thus, it does not violate the principle of res judicata.
However, Justice Jung Hyeong-sik expressed a supplementary opinion that future legislation should consider limiting the number of impeachment motions across different sessions.
➃ Whether the short duration and lack of resulting harm from the martial law declaration invalidate the legal interest in this case:
Even though martial law was lifted shortly after its declaration, the grounds for impeachment had already occurred. Therefore, the case remains valid and cannot be considered without legal interest.
➄ On whether reframing the grounds for impeachment from violations of the Criminal Act (such as insurrection) to constitutional violations after the impeachment filing constitutes an improper change:
As long as the fundamental facts remain the same, altering or retracting the specific legal provisions cited does not amount to an improper change in the grounds for impeachment. Thus, it is allowed without a special procedure.
The respondent argues that, without the inclusion of insurrection-related charges, the vote would not have met the necessary quorum—but this is a hypothetical claim, lacking objective evidence.
➅ On the claim that the impeachment power was abused to seize the presidency:
Since the impeachment motion was passed legally and the respondent’s violations of the Constitution and law have been substantiated to a certain degree, the court cannot conclude that the impeachment power was abused.
Therefore, the impeachment petition is procedurally legitimate.
Regarding the rules of evidence, Justices Lee Mi-seon and Kim Hyeong-du expressed a supplementary opinion that evidentiary rules from criminal trials can be relaxed in impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, Justices Kim Bok-hyeong and Cho Han-chang stated that evidentiary standards should be applied more strictly going forward.
Next, we examine whether the respondent violated the Constitution or laws in the performance of their duties, and whether such violations were serious enough to warrant removal from office.
We begin by reviewing the specific grounds for impeachment.
① On the declaration of martial law:
According to the Constitution and the Martial Law Act, one substantive condition for declaring extraordinary martial law is that an actual crisis must exist: war, rebellion, or a comparable national emergency where hostilities or severe public disorder significantly disrupt the operations of government and judiciary.
The respondent claimed that an exceptional crisis occurred due to the opposition party's unusual push for impeachment, unilateral legislative actions, and budget cuts.
During the respondent’s term leading up to the declaration, the National Assembly submitted 22 impeachment motions against officials including the Minister of Interior and Safety, prosecutors, the Chairperson of the Broadcasting Commission, and the Auditor General. This raised concerns that the National Assembly was using the impeachment process as a political pressure tactic, without sufficiently considering the constitutionality or legality of the alleged violations.
However, at the time martial law was declared, only impeachment trials for one prosecutor and the Broadcasting Commission Chairperson were underway.
The controversial legislative bills passed by the opposition had not yet taken effect, as the respondent had requested reconsideration or withheld promulgation.
The 2025 budget bill, which the respondent argued was problematic, had not been passed by the full Assembly and was not impacting the government’s operation at the time, as the 2024 budget was still in effect.
Thus, the National Assembly's exercise of its powers did not amount to an actual, significant crisis warranting martial law.
Even if the Assembly’s actions were arguably unlawful or improper, there were ordinary constitutional remedies available, such as requesting legislative reconsideration or challenging impeachment decisions in the Constitutional Court. Therefore, invoking emergency powers was not justified.
The respondent also cited suspicions of election fraud as grounds for martial law. However, mere allegations do not constitute a national crisis.
Moreover, the National Election Commission had addressed most of the security vulnerabilities before the 22nd general election. Measures included 24-hour surveillance of ballot storage via CCTV and the introduction of vote-verification systems during counting. These steps further undermine the respondent’s justification.
Considering all of the above, the respondent's claims do not objectively justify the existence of a crisis that would warrant the declaration of martial law.
The Constitution and Martial Law Act require that martial law be declared only when military force is necessary for military operations or to maintain public order.
However, the issues raised by the respondent—legislative overreach and election concerns—are political, institutional, and legal matters. These are not to be resolved through military intervention.
The respondent characterized the martial law as a "warning" or "appeal" to alert the public to government crisis. However, this is not a purpose recognized by the Martial Law Act.
Furthermore, the respondent went beyond merely declaring martial law, by deploying military and police forces to obstruct the National Assembly—clearly violating the Constitution and laws. Thus, the claim that this was a symbolic or warning measure is not acceptable.
Therefore, the declaration of martial law violated the substantive conditions required by law.
We now examine whether the procedural requirements for declaring martial law were followed.
The declaration and the appointment of the martial law commander must be deliberated in a Cabinet meeting.
While the respondent briefly explained the purpose of the declaration to the Prime Minister and nine Cabinet members, he did not explain the specific details, including the identity of the martial law commander, nor did he allow them to express their opinions. Therefore, it cannot be said that proper deliberation took place.
In addition, the respondent declared martial law without the necessary countersignatures from the Prime Minister and relevant ministers. He failed to publicize the date, region, and commander of martial law, and did not notify the National Assembly without delay.
Hence, the declaration also violated the procedural requirements set by the Constitution and Martial Law Act.
② On 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.
Soldiers entered the premises using helicopters, some breaking windows to access the main building.
The respondent instructed the Special Warfare Commander to "break down the doors and drag them out" if the quorum seemed unmet.
He also contacted the National Police Commissioner six times directly and conveyed the martial law edict through the martial law commander, leading to the complete blockade of access to the Assembly.
Some lawmakers had to climb over fences to enter or were blocked entirely.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Defense ordered the Chief of Military Intelligence to locate 14 individuals, including the Speaker of the National Assembly and party leaders, for potential arrest. The respondent called the Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service (NIS), instructing cooperation with military intelligence.
The military intelligence head then asked the NIS Deputy Director to help locate the individuals
As such, the respondent interfered with the exercise of the National Assembly’s powers by deploying military and police forces to control access to the National Assembly by its members and ordering their removal. This violated the constitutional provision granting the National Assembly the power to demand the lifting of martial law, and infringed upon the rights of lawmakers to deliberate and vote, as well as their parliamentary immunity.
Furthermore, by participating in efforts to locate the positions of party leaders and others, the respondent infringed upon the freedom of political party activities.
The respondent, by deploying the military for political purposes such as obstructing the National Assembly’s exercise of authority, caused military personnel—who have dedicated themselves to serving the nation with the mission of ensuring national security and defense—to confront ordinary citizens. In doing so, the respondent compromised the political neutrality of the armed forces and violated the constitutional duty to command the military in accordance with the law.
③ Next, we will address the proclamation of the martial law decree in question.
Through this decree, the respondent prohibited the activities of the National Assembly, local councils, and political parties. In doing so, the respondent violated the constitutional provisions that grant the National Assembly the right to request the lifting of martial law, establish the party system, and uphold representative democracy and the principle of separation of powers.
Furthermore, the respondent infringed on political fundamental rights, the right to collective action, and freedom of occupation by violating constitutional and statutory provisions that set conditions for restricting fundamental rights under emergency martial law, and by violating the principle of due process, particularly the warrant requirement.
④ Regarding the search and seizure conducted against the National Election Commission:
The respondent ordered the Minister of National Defense to deploy troops to inspect the NEC’s electronic systems. In response, deployed forces entered the NEC building, controlled access, confiscated the mobile phones of on-duty staff, and photographed the computer systems.
This amounted to a warrantless search and seizure against the Election Commission, violating the principle of due process and infringing on the Commission's independence.
⑤ Regarding the attempt to locate the positions of legal professionals:
As previously mentioned, the respondent was involved in efforts to locate individuals for possible arrest. Among those targeted were a recently retired Chief Justice and former justices of the Supreme Court.
This created pressure on incumbent judges, implying that they, too, could be subject to arrest by the executive branch at any time, thereby threatening the independence of the judiciary.
Now, we will examine whether the respondent’s constitutional and legal violations are grave enough to justify removal from office.
The respondent, in an attempt to overcome a conflict with the National Assembly, declared martial law and deployed military and police forces to obstruct the Assembly’s constitutional powers. This action denied the principle of popular sovereignty and democracy, disregarded the constitutional order by using military force against the National Election Commission, and through the proclamation of martial law, severely infringed upon the basic rights of the people.
Such actions violated the fundamental principles of the rule of law and democratic governance. They harmed constitutional order and posed a serious threat to the stability of the democratic republic.
The fact that the National Assembly was able to swiftly adopt a resolution to lift the emergency martial law was due to public resistance and the passive response of the military and police. This does not affect the judgment of the gravity of the respondent’s violations.
The powers of the President are granted solely by the Constitution. The respondent exercised emergency powers—powers that must be used with the utmost caution—beyond the constitutional limits, thereby undermining trust in the exercise of presidential authority.
Since taking office, the respondent faced an unusually high number of impeachment motions led by the opposition, resulting in the suspension of authority for several high-ranking officials during impeachment proceedings.
In 2025, for the first time in constitutional history, the National Assembly’s Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, led solely by the opposition, passed budget cuts without any increases. Major policies initiated by the respondent were blocked by the opposition, and legislation opposed by the government was unilaterally passed by the opposition, leading to repeated presidential vetoes and re-approvals by the National Assembly.
The respondent appears to have felt a grave responsibility to resolve what he perceived as a national crisis caused by the opposition’s abuse of power and the resulting political paralysis.
The respondent’s judgment that the National Assembly’s exercise of power constituted abuse or paralysis of state affairs may deserve political respect. However, the conflict between the President and the National Assembly cannot be attributed solely to one side. Such conflicts should be resolved within the framework of democracy. Any political opinions or decisions in this regard must remain within the bounds of constitutionally protected democratic principles.
The National Assembly should have respected minority opinions and, in its relationship with the government, sought compromise and resolution through dialogue based on tolerance and self-restraint. Likewise, the respondent should have respected the National Assembly, which represents the people, as a partner in governance.
Instead, the respondent treated the Assembly as an entity to be excluded, undermining the foundations of democratic politics and failing to align with democratic values.
Even if the respondent believed the National Assembly’s exercise of power was a form of tyranny by the majority, he should have relied on constitutionally provided checks and balances.
Roughly two years after taking office, the respondent had the opportunity to persuade the people through a general election to support his administration. Even if the election outcome did not align with his expectations, he should not have attempted to disregard the will of the citizens who supported the opposition.
Nevertheless, the respondent violated the Constitution and the law by declaring martial law, reviving a history of emergency power abuse, shocking the public, and causing chaos across social, economic, political, and diplomatic domains.
As the President of all citizens, the respondent failed in his duty to transcend partisan lines and unify the community.
By deploying military and police forces to damage the authority of constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly, and by infringing upon citizens’ fundamental rights, the respondent abandoned his duty to uphold the Constitution and gravely betrayed the trust of the sovereign people of the Republic of Korea.
Ultimately, the respondent’s unconstitutional and illegal acts constitute serious violations that are incompatible with constitutional order and cannot be tolerated from the standpoint of constitutional protection.
Given the profound and widespread impact of the respondent’s legal violations on the constitutional order, the benefit to constitutional protection from removing the respondent from office clearly outweighs the national loss resulting from the president’s dismissal.
Therefore, the Court delivers the following unanimous decision.
Since this is an impeachment case, the time of the verdict will be recorded. It is now 11:22 AM.
Ruling
The respondent, President Yoon Suk-yeol, is dismissed from office.
This concludes the ruling.
