Yoon Sang-hyun: "Yoon's Martial Law Decision Was a Mistake, Still Opposed to Impeachment... Here's Why"

SNS Reveals Firm Opposition to Impeachment
"Cannot Hand Over Power to Lee Jae-myung"

On the 14th, Yoon Sang-hyun, a member of the People Power Party, reiterated his opposition to the impeachment vote against President Yoon Seok-yeol. Regarding the declaration of martial law, Yoon described it as a "judgment error" and an "excessive decision." He also argued that the facts must be clarified first.

Through social media (SNS) on the same day, Yoon stated, "I oppose the impeachment of President Yoon Seok-yeol today." He added, "I truly cannot help but feel sorry to the people and party members for the situation reaching this point."

Yonhap News

Regarding his opposition to impeachment, he said, "It is not about protecting President Yoon personally," but "because we cannot hand over power to the Democratic Party led by the unscrupulous Lee Jae-myung." Yoon also raised the responsibility of the Democratic Party, saying, "Since the 22nd National Assembly began, based on their overwhelming number of seats, Lee Jae-myung's Democratic Party has disrupted the constitutional order of the Republic of Korea through unimaginable legislative rampages, impeachment rampages, and budget rampages."

On President Yoon’s declaration of martial law, he evaluated, "The president’s December 3 martial law was a judgment error and an excessive decision that confused the people." However, regarding the application of charges such as treason, he argued, "It needs to be examined."

He also criticized Han Dong-hoon, leader of the People Power Party, who defined it as "treason." He said, "At the very least, as a member of the same party who shared the same table, I believe the minimum trust toward the president is to form an internal TF team to discuss the president’s claims, clarify the facts to some extent through a parliamentary investigation and hearings, and then proceed with the impeachment process."

Yoon argued, "The December 3 martial law may not have met the requirements for the declaration of martial law as a national emergency equivalent to war or armed rebellion as stipulated in Article 77 of the Constitution. However, if this is a high-level governing act under the president’s emergency powers, even if the president’s judgment in duty is unconstitutional, it is considerably difficult to punish."