[Full Text] Yoon's Final Statement: "If I Return to Duty, I Will Focus on Constitutional Amendment in the Latter Half of My Term"

Read the 77-Page Final Statement in 67 Minutes
48 Mentions of the Opposition, 25 of Spies, 15 of North Korea, 6 of Constitutional Amendment

On the afternoon of the 25th, during the final arguments of President Yoon Seok-yeol's impeachment trial held at the Constitutional Court, President Yoon personally stated his position. After the National Assembly's prosecution team concluded their final arguments, President Yoon read aloud the 'Respondent President's Final Statement.' This marks the first time in constitutional history that a sitting president has appeared in their own impeachment trial to deliver a final statement.

In previous impeachment trials of former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye, their legal representatives delivered the final statements on their behalf. President Yoon questioned, “Would 500,000 soldiers serve as mere personal soldiers for a single-term president with a five-year term?” and stated, “The martial law was not a choice made for Yoon Seok-yeol personally.” He also said, “If I return to duty, I will focus on constitutional amendment and political reform.”

Below is the full text of the president’s final statement.

Honorable Constitutional Court Justices, and beloved citizens who have watched this trial with interest, it has been 84 days since I declared martial law on December 3rd last year. These have been the most difficult days of my life, but also a time of gratitude and reflection.

Reflecting on myself, I realized that I have received an overwhelming amount of love from our people. While feeling grateful, I also felt remorse and pain that I have not been able to fulfill my duties during the time entrusted to me by the people. At the same time, seeing many citizens still trusting me, I felt a heavy sense of responsibility. I want to first express my apologies and gratitude to the people.

When I declared martial law and lifted it a few hours later, many people did not understand. Even now, some may still be confused. The word “martial law” may evoke negative memories from the past. The major opposition party and internal subversive forces have exploited this trauma to incite the public.

However, the December 3rd martial law was completely different from past martial laws. It was not martial law to suppress the people by force, but a national appeal using the form of martial law. The declaration of martial law on December 3rd was a declaration that the country is currently facing a catastrophic crisis and a desperate appeal to the sovereign people to face the situation and join in overcoming it.

Above all, I can clearly state that this was never a choice made for me, Yoon Seok-yeol, personally. I was already at the pinnacle of power as president. The easiest and most comfortable path for a president is to avoid difficult and risky actions, compromise moderately with various social forces, say things pleasing to everyone, and spend the five-year term peacefully.

If one abandons the desire to work, there is no need to fight fiercely or make difficult choices. By working moderately for five years, one can enjoy the privileges of a former president and live a comfortable retirement. If I only considered my personal life, there would be no reason to choose martial law, which could provoke fierce attacks from political opponents.

When I decided on martial law, I naturally anticipated enormous difficulties. The major opposition party claims I declared martial law to establish dictatorship and extend my rule. This is a fabricated frame to accuse me of treason.

If that were truly the case, would I have deployed only about 280 troops without a commanding officer? Would I have declared martial law on a weekday rather than a weekend and ordered troop movements only after the declaration?

According to evidence examined in the courtroom, before the resolution demanding the lifting of martial law, only 106 troops entered the National Assembly, and only 15 entered the main building. The reason those 15 broke a glass window to enter was that their assigned post was inside the main building, but citizens blocked the entrance, so they entered through a window with the lights off to avoid conflict.

Furthermore, all troops were immediately withdrawn after the resolution demanding the lifting of martial law was passed. Because the deployed military personnel were so few, police were requested to maintain security and order outside the National Assembly.

There were injured soldiers, but not a single ordinary citizen was harmed. From the beginning, I clearly informed the Minister of National Defense that the purpose of this martial law was a “national appeal.” Also, I said that since the National Assembly would promptly demand lifting the martial law, the martial law would not last long.

However, I could not inform military commanders of these details in advance. Therefore, by deploying the minimum number of troops without a commanding officer, the military’s mission was strictly limited to security and order maintenance. If many troops were deployed armed, even with caution and restraint, clashes with crowds could easily occur. We fundamentally prevented such incidents, and the actual results were as expected. This is why I clearly instructed the Minister of National Defense to deploy a small number of troops, unarmed, and experienced soldiers.

Nevertheless, the major opposition party claims this was treason. Is there such a thing as a two-hour treason when troop deployment lasted less than two hours? Have you ever seen a treason that was announced to the entire world and the public via broadcast, and when the National Assembly said to stop, the troops immediately withdrew and stopped?

The major opposition party’s claim that the president tried to seize the National Assembly and commit treason is merely a political incitement to remove the president by any means.

Seeing public officials who carried out martial law affairs and maintained order under the president’s legal authority now suffering due to this fabricated treason accusation breaks my heart. Would these people have worked for the president’s long-term dictatorship? They are well aware that long-term dictatorship is unimaginable in the reality of the Republic of Korea, and they have already reached the highest positions in their fields with nothing more to desire. They only performed their duties according to the president’s lawful exercise of authority.

Honorable justices and citizens, when a president oversees state affairs with abundant information, many problems invisible to others and not apparent on the surface become visible. Even if things seem fine now, the president’s perspective reveals issues that will soon become major crises.

Like a frog in a slowly boiling pot, the country is heading toward the edge of a cliff without realizing the reality before its eyes. Some may think there has never been a time without crisis. However, if past crises were sudden issues, the current crisis is of a completely different dimension as it threatens the nation’s existence and the entire system.

Former U.S. President Trump declared a national emergency and deployed troops on his first day in office. Opinions may differ on whether the U.S. was in a national emergency. However, it is clear that the president’s decision was to protect American citizens against crises such as illegal immigrants, drug cartels, and energy shortages.

Then, what about our country’s reality? Can anyone assert with certainty that we are not in a national emergency? External forces infringing on sovereignty, including North Korea, and internal anti-state forces are linked, seriously threatening national security and continuity. They are driving our society into conflict and chaos through fake news, public opinion manipulation, and propaganda.

Even looking at the 2023 uncovered spy ring within the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), the reality of anti-state forces is evident. They contacted North Korean agents, received direct orders, and passed military facility information to North Korea. Following North Korean orders, they organized general strikes, opposed President Biden’s visit to Korea, opposed joint U.S.-Korea military exercises, and staged anti-government protests such as those after the Itaewon tragedy.

There is even evidence of election interference under North Korean instructions. Shortly after the last presidential election, orders were given to “ignite the spark for the president’s impeachment.” In fact, on March 26, 2022, a “Yoon Seok-yeol Preemptive Impeachment” rally was held, and by early December 2024, as many as 178 rallies demanding the president’s resignation and impeachment took place.

These rallies involved KCTU-affiliated construction and media unions, and major opposition party lawmakers also took the podium. Isn’t this exactly as North Korea ordered?

Some say, “Where are spies in today’s world?” But spies have not disappeared; they have evolved into subversive activities aimed at overthrowing the Republic of Korea’s liberal democracy. However, our society’s defenses against such espionage activities are weakening and riddled with holes.

Due to the previous Democratic Party government’s forced legislation, the National Intelligence Service (NIS) lost its counterintelligence investigation authority starting January 2024. Spy cases require long-term, meticulous internal investigations by experienced agencies. Yet, without proper preparation time, this authority was transferred to the police, who lack expertise and experience. This created an environment where spies roam freely. Moreover, even when spies are caught, trials are delayed for extended periods. Currently, four spy cases are ongoing: the KCTU spy ring, Changwon spy ring, Cheongju spy ring, and Jeju spy ring.

The Cheongju spy case took over 29 months for a first trial verdict, and the KCTU spy case took one year and six months. They were released after their detention periods expired and roamed freely until court-ordered detention after the first trial verdict. The Changwon spy case trial has been suspended for nearly two years, and the Jeju spy case trial has been disrupted for one year and ten months. All are currently released.

Is it normal to be unable to catch spies or punish them properly even when caught?

Yet, the major opposition party rushes to defend the KCTU and demands the abolition of the National Security Act following the removal of the NIS’s counterintelligence authority. They even cut all special activity funds used by the police for counterintelligence to zero.

In short, they are telling us not to catch spies. Last year, Chinese nationals were repeatedly caught flying drones over our military bases, the NIS, international airports, and U.S. military facilities in Korea. To punish them for espionage, laws must be amended, but the major opposition party strongly opposes this.

Industrial espionage leaking core national technologies has also surged recently. Damage from technology leaks in semiconductors, displays, and other sectors amounts to tens of trillions of won, with two-thirds leaking to China. China enforces a strict “anti-espionage law” that allows arbitrary detention of our citizens even for a single wrong photo, yet the major opposition party blocks even legal amendments to prevent industrial espionage. They also push for amendments to the Defense Acquisition Program Act requiring parliamentary approval for defense exports as a party policy.

Defense secret materials must be submitted to the National Assembly, and if the major opposition party opposes, defense exports cannot proceed.

Who can guarantee that secret defense materials submitted to the National Assembly will be properly secured and not fall into hostile hands? If defense secrets leak this way, will other countries import our defense products? It is tantamount to saying not to export defense to the free world, which North Korea, China, and Russia do not want. Defense exports are not just about making money.

They strengthen strategic alliances with export partner countries and, further, achieve defense cooperation with many free world countries to strengthen our security. Who benefits from obstructing rather than encouraging such defense exports?

The major opposition party is also leading efforts to weaken our defense capabilities and neutralize the military. North Korea is dispatching troops to Ukraine and attempting military closeness with Russia. This poses a very serious security threat to us.

Yet, when efforts were made to send an observation team to monitor this, the major opposition party fiercely blocked it, even threatening impeachment of then Defense Minister Shin Won-sik. They even claim legitimate security activities such as sending observation teams to Ukraine and reviewing responses to North Korean loudspeaker balloons and waste balloons are acts of treason.

They criticize the president, who seeks to protect the nation and its people, as a “warmonger” and denounce joint U.S.-Korea-Japan exercises responding to North Korean nuclear threats as “extreme pro-Japanese acts.” The first presidential impeachment motion even stated that antagonizing North Korea, China, and Russia was grounds for impeachment.

The major opposition party, with its overwhelming 190 seats, stands not with our country and people but with North Korea, China, and Russia. If this is not a national crisis, then what is?

And that is not all.

The major opposition party is trying to neutralize our military by cutting key defense budgets. They claim they only cut 0.65% of the total budget, but where that 0.65% is matters greatly.

It is like saying you removed only two eyeballs from the entire body after removing both eyes.

The defense budget cuts made by the major opposition party target the military’s “eyes.” They drastically cut reconnaissance asset budgets, which are core to the “Kill Chain” preemptive strike system against North Korean nuclear and missile bases.

The budget for the key tactical reconnaissance project was reduced by 485.2 billion won compared to 2024, and the tactical data link system performance upgrade project was cut by a staggering 78%.

The Korean Air and Missile Defense (KAMD) system, designed to intercept missiles flying toward our people, is also at risk of development suspension due to budget cuts.

Although 11.959 billion won was allocated for the long-range ship-based surface-to-air guided missile project, 96% was cut, leaving only 500 million won. The precision-guided munition research and development project was cut by 84%.

No matter how strong your fist is, if you cannot see ahead, you cannot fight. Without surveillance and reconnaissance assets, even the best weapons are useless.

Moreover, North Korea’s drone attacks have recently emerged as the greatest threat, but the drone defense budget of 10 billion won was cut by 9.954 billion won, effectively halting the project.

I am genuinely curious whose orders led to such selective cuts of core budgets.

Furthermore, the previous Democratic Party government drastically reduced the number of investigators in the military counterintelligence command by half, severely damaging intelligence and counterintelligence activities related to the military and defense industry.

They also appointed individuals involved in past espionage cases as key senior officials in the National Intelligence Service, leaving the organization in a state where it is unclear whether it is a counterintelligence agency or an intelligence leak agency.

Those who led these actions during the previous government still remain core forces within the major opposition party, shaking national security.

Our government has strived to make the NIS a central agency for national security and worked to strengthen the capabilities of the military counterintelligence command, but the root problems have not yet been fully eradicated. It is easier to break and destroy than to build and create, which takes time.

Though the situation may appear normal on the surface, I judge it to be a national crisis comparable to wartime or emergency situations.

Before blaming the president’s perception of the opposition, the major opposition party should first demonstrate responsible attitudes and trust as a political party toward the nation. I am willing to engage in dialogue and compromise with any political force as long as we share the principles of liberal democracy, national security, and protection of core national interests.

Is there left or right in matters for the country and the people?

However, communism denying freedom, one-party communist dictatorship, and totalitarianism based on materialism infiltrating our Republic of Korea through various deceptions must be stopped.

We must not compromise or bargain with such forces. We can trade and pursue international cooperation and mutual benefits with countries that do not share our values. But we must prevent them from influencing and infiltrating our political system. This political security is as important as national defense security. It is the path to protecting liberal democracy.

A political party in a liberal democratic country must never defend or ally with such forces.

Honorable justices and citizens, the major opposition party has advocated for the president’s preemptive impeachment even before my inauguration and has paralyzed the government through serial impeachment motions, legislative rampages, and budgetary outrages. They justify these rampages as legitimate parliamentary authority. However, the constitutional authority of the National Assembly is granted to serve the people.

If they abuse that authority to paralyze the government for political purposes, it is nothing less than a disruption of the constitutional order and national sovereignty.

Moreover, the major opposition party continues to fabricate treason accusations, claiming I tried to paralyze the National Assembly through martial law.

But the major opposition party has persistently and relentlessly paralyzed the government’s authority since I took office. They wield parliamentary authority as if paralyzing the government is their sole goal.

They did not block access to members of the National Assembly or staff, nor did they obstruct parliamentary resolutions during the two-and-a-half-hour martial law, yet they have paralyzed the government through serial impeachment motions and legislative and budgetary outrages over two and a half years. Which side, then, has paralyzed and infringed upon the other’s authority?

The major opposition party has impeached not only cabinet members but also the chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, prosecutors, auditors, and agency heads repeatedly. Whether the grounds for impeachment were valid was irrelevant. They even impeached ministers for merely glaring at the opposition party leader. They suspended duties first by impeachment and then absurdly changed the grounds for impeachment during the Constitutional Court trial.

Recently, the Constitutional Court justices themselves conducted impeachment trials for prosecutors including the Seoul Central District Prosecutor General.

They were accused of lying at press conferences, but they did not even attend those conferences; accused of false testimony at parliamentary hearings, but they did not attend those hearings. Even with basic impeachment grounds being incorrect, they suspended duties first.

Is this normal?

The major opposition party’s indiscriminate impeachment of public officials goes beyond paralyzing government functions and leads to the collapse of the constitutional order.

After the Itaewon tragedy, the major opposition party repeatedly demanded truth investigations and exploited the tragedy for political gain. They even impeached the Minister of the Interior and Safety. North Korea’s orders to the KCTU spy ring included:

“Use this massive tragedy as an opportunity to create a political climate similar to the Sewol ferry disaster truth-seeking struggle and maximize the expression of anger across all sectors.”

The major opposition party essentially engaged in the same actions as the North Korean-directed spy ring. This is truly a “provocative impeachment” that fuels social conflict and chaos.

The major opposition party has impeached prosecutors investigating their party leader and even impeached the Seoul Central District Prosecutor General.

Prosecutor impeachment obstructs investigations and intimidates judges watching the impeachment.

It is a “bulletproof impeachment” to block prosecution of the opposition leader and pressure judges who would try the leader’s crimes.

Eventually, the major opposition party even impeached the Audit and Inspection Board chairman who audited treasonous acts of the previous government. The impeachment motion included the “alleged deliberate delay of THAAD deployment” audit as grounds.

This case involves four senior security officials from the previous Democratic Party government who passed national secrets such as THAAD deployment, operation name, timing, and details to the Chinese Embassy military attach?. The Audit and Inspection Board detected this, referred it to prosecution, and took audit measures, yet this is cited as grounds for impeachment. This is a “treasonous impeachment” to cover up their espionage acts. Impeaching the Audit and Inspection Board chairman, a constitutional institution, is itself a serious constitutional violation, and covering up treason with impeachment is a catastrophic crisis destroying liberal democracy.

Meanwhile, government ministries spend enormous budgets funded by taxpayers and oversee numerous subordinate agencies. If their heads are suspended by impeachment motions, paralyzing or severely impairing their functions, how much damage and loss would this cause to the nation and people in terms of opportunity cost and finances?

The major opposition party indiscriminately files impeachment motions against public officials and uses taxpayers’ money for prosecution team lawyers, but officials unfairly impeached must pay legal fees from their own funds while suspended. Government officials can only be intimidated by such outrageous acts of the major opposition party.

Thus, the major opposition party is destroying the Republic of Korea through “provocative impeachment,” “bulletproof impeachment,” and “treasonous impeachment.”

Among our country’s elections, the presidential election has the longest period and the greatest public interest.

Accordingly, the democratic legitimacy of a directly elected president carries more weight than other elected officials. Our democratization movement was essentially about securing direct presidential elections. Yet, immediately after the presidential election, the major opposition party allied with sympathizers to launch preemptive impeachment and resignation campaigns against the president-elect who had not even taken office, and for two and a half years, they have focused solely on removing the president through serial impeachment motions and legislative and budgetary outrages.

This is not legitimate checks and balances as defined by the constitution but a relentless campaign to remove the symbol of democratic legitimacy, the directly elected president. If this is not a disruption of national sovereignty, then what is?

Moreover, the major opposition party’s continuous disruption of national sovereignty is based on perceptions far removed from the spirit of liberal democratic constitutionalism regarding national identity and foreign relations.

Therefore, serial impeachment and legislative and budgetary outrages aimed at removing a directly elected president destroy the liberal democratic constitutional order in every respect.

People often call the presidential system a “monarchical presidential system.” However, our country is not in an era of monarchical presidents but an era of monarchical major opposition parties. The rampage of the monarchical major opposition party is bringing about a crisis threatening the existence of the Republic of Korea.

Isn’t this evident from what happened after martial law? If I were truly a monarchical president, would the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, police, and prosecution have competed to investigate me? Would the Corruption Investigation Office, which lacks authority to investigate treason, have engaged in warrant shopping and forged official documents to arrest me?

Only 570 troops were deployed during martial law, but over 30,000 to 40,000 police officers were illegally mobilized to arrest a single president at the presidential residence. Between the president and the major opposition party, who is wielding monarchical power and destroying the constitutional order?

The reason I decided on martial law was the urgent desperation that I could no longer ignore the country’s existential crisis.

I wanted to inform the sovereign people of the major opposition party’s anti-state atrocities and appeal to the people to stop them through vigilant scrutiny and criticism.

I declared martial law with a desperate heart to prevent government paralysis and the collapse of liberal democratic constitutional order and to normalize state functions. The December 3rd martial law declaration was a declaration that the country was in a crisis and emergency.

It was not to suppress the people or restrict fundamental rights but a sincere appeal for the sovereign people to directly participate in overcoming the emergency.

However, the major opposition party started impeachment proceedings from the very day I lifted martial law at the National Assembly’s request. But martial law is not a crime; it is a lawful exercise of presidential authority to overcome a national crisis.

I declared martial law through an emergency Cabinet meeting and broadcast, deployed minimal troops to maintain order at the National Assembly, and immediately withdrew troops and convened a Cabinet meeting to lift martial law when the National Assembly passed a resolution demanding its lifting.

As you all know, in 2023, national institutions including the Central Election Commission were seriously hacked by North Korea.

Although the Central Election Commission was notified by the NIS, unlike other agencies, it did not properly respond to inspections and only reluctantly complied. Some inspections revealed serious security issues, so a small number of troops were deployed at the Central Election Commission’s computer system screen level. The security of the Central Election Commission’s computer system, directly related to election fairness, is a core public good and asset protecting our liberal democratic system.

Moreover, large amounts of fake fraudulent ballots and statistically and mathematically inexplicable voting results revealed in election lawsuits have consistently raised the need for transparent inspections of the Central Election Commission’s computer system.

I cannot understand how any of these measures constitute treason or crime.

If martial law itself were illegal, why would the Martial Law Act exist, and why is there a martial law division in the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Honorable justices and citizens, I first declared my political participation on June 29, 2021.

I knew well that the presidency is not a path of glory but one of hardship. Someone who closely observed the presidency once told me that the Korean presidency is a cursed path and tried to dissuade me.

However, seeing the collapse of liberal democratic constitutional order, I started politics to protect the country.

When I declared my political participation, I made a promise to the people: to create a country where young people who bear our future, those who sacrificed for the nation, those who devoted their lives to industrialization, those who silently live after dedicating themselves to democratization, and those who faithfully pay taxes do not feel anger.

I promised to build a dynamic country where youth can thrive, a nation of freedom and creativity, a warm country where the weak are not intimidated, and a country that shares values and fulfills responsibilities in the international community.

I vowed before the people to reclaim sovereignty stolen by the major opposition party’s overwhelming seats and vested interest cartels. Since that day, I have never forgotten this promise. After being elected president by the people’s choice, I have worked tirelessly to fulfill it. Nothing has been easy.

The external environment’s difficulties due to the global complex crisis continued. The previous Democratic Party government’s flawed income-led growth and real estate policies continued to hamper solving economic and livelihood issues.

But I believed any problem could be solved with effort, and indeed, working alongside our companies and people, we resolved issues one by one. There were many joyful and rewarding moments, as well as shortcomings and regrets.

Above all, improving the treatment of uniformed public officials protecting national security and public safety was rewarding.

While the previous Democratic Party government focused only on anti-Japanese agitation, under our government, per capita GDP surpassed Japan’s, and the export gap with Japan, an economic powerhouse with more than twice our population, has narrowed to just tens of billions of dollars.

This is a reduction to one-hundredth compared to 20 years ago and to one-tenth or less compared to the previous Democratic Party government.

I vividly remember the thirty nationwide public livelihood forums held last year. Listening directly to the people’s difficulties and solving many issues on-site, I laughed and cried with the people.

From the metropolitan area, Yeongnam, Honam, Chungcheong, Gangwon, to Jeju, I traveled all regions, contemplating regional development plans together. I wanted to achieve true national unity by ensuring fair opportunities and happiness for all citizens regardless of where they live.

I regret whether I will have another chance to work like this.

When I went to the U.S. on a grueling one-night, four-day schedule and announced the Korea-U.S.-Japan Camp David Declaration, I felt truly rewarded and reassured. When Team Korea was selected as the preferred negotiator for the Czech nuclear power plant construction project, I was overjoyed.

Regrettable moments also come to mind.

Essential bills for companies and citizens were endlessly delayed, while unconstitutional bills and bills against core national interests, which I had to veto, were rapidly passed by the opposition party alone in the National Assembly.

When Achilles’ heel budgets essential for defense, security, and livelihoods were cut, I felt helpless.

Though I am currently paused, many citizens, especially our youth, are facing the reality of the Republic of Korea, reclaiming sovereignty, and stepping up to protect the country.

The purpose of martial law was to inform of a catastrophic crisis and appeal to the sovereign people, the constitutional sovereign power, to take action. I believe this purpose has been largely achieved. I sincerely thank our people and youth who understand my true intentions.

There are claims that if I return to duty, I will declare martial law again. This is absurd. Martial law was a national appeal using the form of martial law, and many citizens and youth have already faced the situation and are stepping up to protect the country. Is there any reason to declare martial law again? There will never be such a thing.

Honorable justices, I would like to briefly address two issues raised during the trial. Rather than detailing facts, I will speak simply within common sense.

First, the claim that I ordered the arrest or removal of National Assembly members from the plenary session is utterly groundless.

Common sense tells us, what would be achieved by arresting or removing members? Even if members were arrested or removed to delay or block lifting martial law, with the entire nation and world watching, what could possibly happen next? As the National Assembly Speaker said on the day of martial law, the National Assembly can convene plenary sessions anywhere to resolve lifting martial law.

Such scenarios appear in movies or novels, but realistically, to do this, one would need a plan and political program to completely seize the country with the military. Was that the actual situation?

Evidence examined in court revealed where key commanders responsible for martial law affairs were just before martial law. They were on local leave approved by ministers, at dinners with spouses, or at executive dinners, and only after martial law was declared did they receive orders from the Minister of National Defense.

There was confusion and sloppiness due to the lack of a prepared, detailed operational plan or guidelines. Why would experienced military experts and commanders behave this way?

Because the December 3rd martial law was a national appeal using the form of martial law, different from past martial laws. Our 500,000 soldiers, who have experienced decades of democracy, would not serve as personal soldiers for a single-term president. I declared martial law solely to appeal to the sovereign people to recognize the National Assembly’s catastrophic dictatorship and to directly monitor and check it.

The claim that I ordered the arrest or removal of members is inconsistent with the plan to deploy only 280 troops for order maintenance. It is nonsensical to say this on a weekday during a session with thousands of members, staff, and aides present. Thousands of National Assembly personnel and civilians were already inside the premises shortly after martial law was declared.

In fact, order maintenance troops arrived only an hour and a half after martial law was declared. Only 106 troops entered the premises, and just 15 entered the main building. Is it reasonable to say to arrest or remove members with such a small force? Moreover, if the quorum was not met, it is common sense to prevent entry rather than forcibly remove members.

Soldiers who entered the main building did not even know where the plenary session hall was. Nothing makes sense. No one was arrested or removed, and while soldiers were assaulted by civilians, there was not a single case of soldiers assaulting or harming civilians.

Making such claims about impossible events that never happened is like trying to scoop moonlight reflected on a lake?utterly absurd. The major opposition party turned martial law, declared under the president’s constitutional authority, into illegal treason to succeed in impeachment. Then, they removed treason from the grounds during the Constitutional Court trial.

This is an unprecedented fraudulent impeachment.

Whether it is treason or not is not determined through lengthy, complicated trials. As precedent shows, it is judged by actual events and outcomes. Treason must be obvious to anyone.

The major opposition party and prosecution team removed treason from the Constitutional Court trial not to shorten the trial but because there was no substance to treason. Moreover, the December 3rd martial law was the fastest martial law in history, ending shortly after declaration. The martial law command and subordinate investigation headquarters were never formed, and martial law simply ended. Martial law lasting only a few peaceful hours cannot be considered treason.

Next, regarding the martial law Cabinet meeting, some claim it was not a legitimate Cabinet meeting. But if it was not a Cabinet meeting, why did Cabinet members come to the presidential office on the night of December 3rd? Some say it was just a briefing, but was the situation suitable for a briefing? Briefings do not require a quorum, so why wait until the quorum was met?

From 8:30 p.m., Cabinet members arrived one by one. I explained martial law to them, and the Minister of National Defense distributed the martial law proclamation document outlining the martial law.

Cabinet members expressed concerns about economic and diplomatic difficulties, but I, as president, explained that I had different views and that the country was in an emergency requiring emergency measures. I told them not to worry about concerns such as financial market turmoil raised by the Deputy Prime Minister for Economy and concerns about allied relations raised by the Foreign Minister. They were reminded not to worry because they associated martial law with past experiences.

The meeting lasted five minutes after the quorum was met, but sufficient discussion had already taken place before that. The next morning’s Cabinet meeting to lift martial law lasted only one minute. Regular Cabinet meetings usually take about an hour due to speeches and multiple agenda items, but individual agenda deliberations are very brief.

Also, the martial law Cabinet meeting could not be conducted like regular meetings due to the need for security, reducing confusion and minimizing order maintenance troops.

Former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min testified in court that he had attended over 100 Cabinet meetings but never experienced such lively discussion and communication as this one. The Chief of Staff and National Security Office Chief were summoned to the presidential office for the meeting, and the NIS Director also attended due to national security issues.

When President Kim Young-sam announced the real-name financial system through an emergency economic order on August 13, 1993, Cabinet members did not know about the announcement until just before the meeting, and the Cabinet meeting minutes were prepared afterward.

Labor Minister Lee In-je explained that situation in detail. Yet no one claimed that meeting did not happen, and the Constitutional Court ruled all emergency orders constitutional.

Other issues will be addressed by the defense team’s arguments.

Honorable justices and citizens, I have performed the presidency with the mindset that if something must be done and someone must do it, I will do it now.

Therefore, during the first half of my term, I boldly pursued national reforms focusing on the three major reforms of education, labor, and pensions, which previous governments avoided fearing loss of votes. We took the first step toward integrating reserved funds after 30 years, laid the foundation for education reform including Neulbom schools and convergent higher education, and boldly transferred authority to strengthen ties with regional industries. We established a new framework for labor law and order and initiated labor reforms to adapt to the Fourth Industrial Revolution era, balancing labor flexibility and protection.

We also conducted extensive actuarial analyses and in-depth public opinion surveys for pension reform, creating a highly acceptable plan submitted to the National Assembly. Early in the term, fulfilling campaign promises and implementing social reforms affecting livelihoods took priority, so political reform was not the focus.

Every administration prioritizes election promises and national agendas early in the term, leaving little room for political reform. Then, the five-year terms of former presidents passed quickly, and the outdated 1987 system remains. Politics causes discomfort to the people and hinders national development.

We must lower political and administrative barriers to enable youth, the future leaders, to participate in decisions shaping the nation’s future.

If I return to duty, I will focus the latter half of my term on constitutional amendment and political reform to adapt the 1987 system to our times and hand down a proper country to future generations.

From the start of my presidency, I planned to pursue constitutional amendment and political reform such as electoral reform in the mid-term. Without the sacrifice and determination of a sitting president, constitutional amendment and political reform cannot be achieved, so I resolved to accomplish this. I promptly pursued and implemented the return of the Blue House to the people, which many former presidents promised but failed to fulfill.

I will devote myself to improving the 1987 system as my final mission, regardless of the remaining term.

I will strive to promptly advance constitutional amendment to create a constitution and political structure suited to societal changes. I will also work to achieve national unity during the amendment and reform process.

Ultimately, since national unity is achieved through the constitution and its values, I believe that properly advancing constitutional amendment and political reform will unite a divided and fractured nation. Then, there will be no reason to cling to the remaining term under the current constitution, and it will be a great honor for me.

Regarding state affairs, considering rapidly changing international situations and global complex crises, I plan to focus on foreign relations as president and delegate significant domestic authority to the prime minister.

Our economy is more dependent on foreign trade than any other country. Especially since the Trump administration, rapid changes in the international order and global economic security have greatly influenced us. Depending on our national policy choices, crises can become opportunities or irreversible disasters. With experience building the strongest Korea-U.S. alliance and leading Korea-U.S.-Japan cooperation as a global diplomatic pillar, I will dedicate myself to protecting national interests in foreign relations.

Honorable justices, first, I deeply thank you for your diligent efforts in this tight-scheduled impeachment trial.

This trial focused mainly on issues raised by the prosecution team, which led the removal of treason charges. Therefore, I believe I did not have enough time to fully explain the reasons and inevitability of the December 3rd martial law declaration. I have submitted related materials sincerely in writing, so please deeply consider the reasons for my agonizing decision as president.

Also, as president handling many state secrets, I trust your wisdom and insight will cover parts I cannot disclose. Once again, thank you for your hard work.

Dear citizens of the Republic of Korea, although martial law was for the nation and people, I sincerely apologize for the confusion and inconvenience caused during the process.

Some young people have faced difficulties due to events during my detention. Beyond right and wrong, I feel deeply sorry and heartbroken. When I ran for president, I resolved to dedicate my life to the country.

After the December 3rd martial law and impeachment motion, I saw citizens brave the cold winter to protect me on the streets. I also heard voices criticizing and reproaching me. Though we have different views, I believe we all love the Republic of Korea. I sincerely thank the citizens who have trusted and supported me so far. I will deeply take to heart the criticisms from the people. I will do my utmost to be a stepping stone for a new Republic of Korea.

Thank you.