Judicial Crackdown: Ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Jail Term Increased Following Martial Law Probe
In a landmark televised ruling on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, the Seoul High Court increased the prison sentence for former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to seven years. This appellate decision adds two years to the initial five-year sentence handed down by a lower court in January, following a series of appeals from both the defense and the prosecution. The case centers on Yoon’s actions during and after his short-lived declaration of martial law in December 2024. While the lower court had cleared Yoon of several charges, the appeals court reversed many of those acquittals. Specifically, the presiding judge found Yoon guilty of mobilizing the Presidential Security Service (PSS) to actively obstruct authorities—including investigators from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO)—who were attempting to execute a lawful arrest warrant in early 2025.
“By deploying state security resources as a personal shield against the rule of law, the defendant committed acts that are fundamentally unacceptable in a democratic society,” the judge remarked during the hearing. The court also noted that Yoon’s attempts to bypass the mandatory Cabinet deliberation process before declaring martial law were a direct violation of constitutional protocols.
The increased sentence reflects additional convictions for the fabrication of official documents and the dissemination of false information to international media to justify the martial law bid. Prosecutors, who had originally sought a ten-year term, argued that Yoon betrayed public trust by privatizing public power for his own survival.
Yoon, a 65-year-old former prosecutor who was impeached and removed from office in 2025, already faces a separate life sentence for insurrection. His legal team has signaled their intent to appeal this latest ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that the court failed to recognize the “political necessity” of his actions. However, for a nation still recovering from the 2024 political crisis, this verdict serves as a stern reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to holding even the highest officials accountable under the law.
