South Korea Ex-President Yoon Faces First Ruling in Martial Law Case

Former South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol is set to receive the first court ruling linked to his failed attempt to impose martial law, a case that has become a defining legal test following his removal from office.

A Seoul district court on Friday is expected to rule on charges that Yoon obstructed law enforcement by resisting arrest in January 2025. Prosecutors allege that Yoon ordered his security detail to block investigators attempting to detain him at his private residence, preventing the execution of a lawful arrest warrant. The charge carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

Yoon, who is currently being held at the Seoul Detention Center, denies the allegations. His legal team has argued that the arrest warrant was procedurally flawed and that security measures were taken to ensure his personal safety, not to interfere with investigators.

• South Korea court set to rule in first case linked to Yoon’s martial law bid
• Ex-president Yoon faces prison risk over alleged obstruction of arrest
• Ruling precedes major insurrection verdict in South Korea next month

The ruling is separate from a broader and more serious insurrection trial in which Yoon has been charged over his December 2024 declaration of martial law. Prosecutors claim the move lacked constitutional justification and was intended to override political opposition. In that case, they have sought the death penalty, an exceptionally rare request in contemporary South Korean politics. A verdict in the insurrection trial is expected next month.

Yoon’s martial law declaration lasted only six hours before being overturned by the National Assembly, including votes from lawmakers in his own conservative camp. The assembly subsequently impeached him, and in April 2025 the Constitutional Court upheld the impeachment, formally removing him from office.

Also Read: India Marks 10 Years of Startup India; PM Modi Leads National Day

The legal proceedings against Yoon have drawn sustained public attention and international scrutiny, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in enforcing constitutional limits on executive power in South Korea.