Full Text of Constitutional Court Ruling on the "President Yoon Seok-yeol Impeachment Case" [Yoon Seok-yeol Dismissal]

We will now begin the judgment on the impeachment case of President Yoon Seok-yeol, 2024Heonna8.

▣ First, let us examine the procedural requirements.

1. Regarding whether the declaration of martial law in this case is subject to judicial review.

Considering the purpose of impeachment trials to protect the constitutional order from violations of the Constitution and laws by high-ranking public officials, even if the declaration of martial law in this case requires a highly political decision, it is possible to review whether it violates the Constitution and laws.

2. Regarding the resolution of the impeachment motion in this case without investigation by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee.

The Constitution entrusts the indictment procedure to legislation by the National Assembly, and the National Assembly Act stipulates that whether to investigate by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee is at the discretion of the National Assembly. Therefore, the absence of investigation by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee does not make the resolution of the impeachment motion invalid.

3. Regarding whether the resolution of the impeachment motion in this case violates the principle of non bis in idem.

The National Assembly Act prohibits reintroducing a rejected agenda within the same session. Although the first impeachment motion against the respondent failed to reach a vote in the 418th regular session, the impeachment motion in this case was introduced during the 419th extraordinary session, so it does not violate the principle of non bis in idem.

Meanwhile, Justice Jeong Hyeong-sik has a concurring opinion stating that legislation is needed to limit the number of times an impeachment motion can be introduced even across different sessions.

4. Regarding whether the benefit of protection is lacking because the martial law in this case was lifted shortly and no damage occurred as a result.

Even if the martial law in this case was lifted, the grounds for impeachment due to the martial law have already occurred, so it cannot be said that the benefit of the trial is denied.

5. Regarding the fact that the indictment document initially included criminal offenses such as treason but after the impeachment petition was filed, the claims were framed as constitutional violations.

Changing or withdrawing the applicable legal provisions while maintaining the basic facts is not considered a withdrawal or change of the grounds for impeachment, so it is allowed without special procedures.

The respondent also argues that if the treason-related parts were not included in the grounds for impeachment, the required quorum for resolution would not have been met, but this is a hypothetical claim without objective supporting evidence.

6. Regarding the claim that the impeachment right was abused to usurp the president's position.

The process of resolving the impeachment motion in this case was lawful, and the respondent's violations of the Constitution or laws were sufficiently demonstrated, so it cannot be considered that the impeachment right was abused.

Therefore, the impeachment petition in this case is lawful.

Meanwhile, regarding the rules of evidence, there are concurring opinions by Justices Lee Mi-seon and Kim Hyeong-du that the hearsay rule under the Criminal Procedure Act can be relaxed in impeachment proceedings, and concurring opinions by Justices Kim Bok-hyeong and Jo Han-chang that the hearsay rule should be applied more strictly in future impeachment proceedings.

▣ Next, let us examine whether the respondent violated the Constitution or laws in the execution of duties, and whether the respondent's legal violations are serious enough to warrant dismissal.

First, we will examine each ground for impeachment.

1. Regarding the declaration of martial law in this case.

According to the Constitution and Martial Law Act, one of the substantive requirements for declaring emergency martial law is that a state of war with the enemy or an equivalent national emergency must have realistically occurred, where social order is extremely disturbed and the performance of administrative and judicial functions is significantly difficult.

The respondent claims that such a serious crisis occurred due to the opposition party holding a majority in the National Assembly pushing for an unusual impeachment, unilateral exercise of legislative power, and attempts to cut the budget.

From the respondent's inauguration until the declaration of martial law in this case, the National Assembly introduced a total of 22 impeachment motions against the Minister of the Interior and Safety, prosecutors, the chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, and the Auditor General. This raised concerns that the National Assembly used the impeachment system as a political pressure tool against the government based solely on suspicions of legal violations without considering the unconstitutionality or illegality of the grounds for impeachment.

However, at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case, only impeachment proceedings against one prosecutor and the chairman of the Korea Communications Commission were ongoing.

The laws that the respondent claims were passed unilaterally by the opposition party and problematic were either subject to the respondent's request for reconsideration or had their promulgation withheld, so they had not taken effect.

The 2025 budget bill could not have affected the situation at the time of the declaration of martial law in 2024 when the 2024 budget was being executed, and only the National Assembly's Budget and Accounts Special Committee had passed it, not the plenary session.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the National Assembly's exercise of impeachment, legislative, and budget review powers realistically caused a serious crisis at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case.

Even if the National Assembly's exercise of power was illegal or improper, it could be addressed through ordinary means such as the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial or the respondent's request for reconsideration of bills, so the exercise of emergency state power cannot be justified.

The respondent also claims that the martial law was declared to resolve suspicions of election fraud. However, the mere existence of suspicions does not mean a serious crisis realistically occurred.

Moreover, the Central Election Commission announced that most security vulnerabilities were addressed before the 22nd National Assembly election, and measures such as 24-hour public CCTV footage of early and postal ballot storage locations and the introduction of a verification system during counting were implemented, so the respondent's claim is not valid.

In conclusion, even considering all the circumstances claimed by the respondent, it cannot be said that a crisis justifying the respondent's judgment objectively existed at the time of the declaration of martial law in this case.

The Constitution and Martial Law Act require as a substantive condition for declaring emergency martial law that there be a necessity and purpose to respond to military needs or maintain public order with armed forces.

However, the paralysis of state affairs due to the National Assembly's exercise of power or suspicions of election fraud claimed by the respondent are issues to be resolved through political, institutional, or judicial means, not by mobilizing armed forces.

The respondent claims that this martial law was a "warning martial law" or "appeal-type martial law" to alert the public to the opposition party's tyranny and the national crisis, but this is not the purpose of martial law as prescribed by the Martial Law Act.

Furthermore, the respondent did not stop at declaring martial law but proceeded to violate the Constitution and laws by mobilizing military and police forces to obstruct the National Assembly's exercise of power, so the respondent's claim of warning or appeal-type martial law cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the declaration of martial law in this case violated the substantive requirements for declaring emergency martial law.

Next, let us examine whether the procedural requirements for declaring martial law in this case were observed.

The declaration of martial law and appointment of the martial law commander must be deliberated by the State Council.

It is acknowledged that the respondent briefly explained the purpose of declaring martial law to the Prime Minister and nine State Council members immediately before declaring martial law in this case.

However, considering that the respondent did not explain the specific details of the martial law such as the martial law commander and did not give other members the opportunity to express opinions, it is difficult to say that deliberation on the declaration of martial law in this case took place.

Additionally, the respondent declared martial law despite the Prime Minister and relevant State Council members not signing the emergency martial law declaration, did not announce the effective date, area, or martial law commander, and did not promptly notify the National Assembly, thereby violating the procedural requirements for declaring emergency martial law as prescribed by the Constitution and Martial Law Act.

2. Regarding 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.

Accordingly, soldiers entered the National Assembly grounds using helicopters, and some broke windows and entered the main building.

The respondent instructed the Army Special Warfare Command and others to "break down the door and pull out those inside" because the quorum for resolution was not met.

The respondent also informed the National Police Agency Commissioner of the contents of this proclamation through the martial law commander and made six direct phone calls. The police commissioner ordered a complete blockade of access to the National Assembly.

As a result, some members of the National Assembly who were gathering had to climb over fences or were unable to enter at all.

Meanwhile, the Minister of National Defense instructed the Commander of the Defense Counterintelligence Command to confirm the locations of the Speaker of the National Assembly and 14 party leaders for possible arrests. The respondent called the first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service to support the Defense Counterintelligence Command, and the commander requested location confirmation of these individuals from the National Intelligence Service.

By deploying military and police forces to control and order the removal of National Assembly members, the respondent obstructed the exercise of the National Assembly's powers, violating constitutional provisions granting the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law, and infringed on members' rights to deliberate, vote, and immunity from arrest.

The respondent's involvement in attempts to confirm the locations of party leaders also infringed on the freedom of party activities.

By deploying troops for political purposes to block the National Assembly's exercise of power, the respondent caused soldiers, whose mission is national security and defense, to confront ordinary citizens.

Thus, the respondent violated the political neutrality of the armed forces and the constitutional duty of military command.

3. Regarding the issuance of the proclamation in this case.

The respondent prohibited the activities of the National Assembly, local councils, and political parties through this proclamation, violating constitutional provisions granting the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law, provisions on the party system, representative democracy, and the principle of separation of powers.

The respondent violated constitutional and martial law provisions setting requirements for restricting fundamental rights under emergency martial law and the warrant principle, infringing on citizens' political rights, rights to collective action, and freedom of occupation.

4. Regarding the search and seizure of the Central Election Commission.

The respondent instructed the Minister of National Defense to mobilize troops to inspect the election commission's computer system. The troops deployed to the Central Election Commission building controlled access, confiscated duty officers' mobile phones, and photographed the computer system.

This constituted a warrantless search and seizure, violating the warrant principle and infringing on the independence of the election commission.

5. Regarding attempts to confirm the locations of legal professionals.

As mentioned earlier, the respondent was involved in attempts to confirm locations for possible arrests, including former Chief Justice and former Supreme Court Justices who had recently retired.

This pressured sitting judges with the possibility of arrest by the executive branch at any time, infringing on judicial independence.

Now, let us consider whether the respondent's legal violations are serious enough to warrant dismissal.

The respondent declared martial law to overcome confrontation with the National Assembly, deployed military and police forces to obstruct the National Assembly's constitutional powers, denying popular sovereignty and democracy, disregarded the constitutional governance structure by ordering the search of the Central Election Commission, and broadly infringed on citizens' fundamental rights by issuing the proclamation.

These acts violate the fundamental principles of the rule of law and democratic state principles, thereby infringing the constitutional order and seriously threatening the stability of the democratic republic.

Meanwhile, the National Assembly was able to promptly pass a resolution demanding the lifting of martial law thanks to citizens' resistance and the passive performance of duties by military and police forces, which does not affect the assessment of the seriousness of the respondent's legal violations.

The president's powers are granted solely by the Constitution. The respondent exercised the state emergency powers, which should be exercised with utmost caution, beyond constitutional limits, causing distrust in the exercise of presidential powers.

Since the respondent's inauguration, numerous impeachment motions led by the opposition party have suspended the exercise of powers by several high-ranking officials during impeachment trials.

For the first time in constitutional history, the National Assembly's Budget and Accounts Special Committee passed the 2025 budget bill with reductions only, without increases, solely by the opposition party.

Major policies established by the respondent could not be implemented due to opposition party resistance, and the opposition party unilaterally passed bills opposed by the government, leading to repeated requests for reconsideration by the respondent and resolutions by the National Assembly.

In this process, the respondent perceived that the opposition party's tyranny paralyzed state affairs and severely harmed national interests, feeling a heavy responsibility to resolve it by any means.

The respondent's judgment that the National Assembly's exercise of power was an abuse of power or caused paralysis of state affairs should be politically respected.

However, the confrontation between the respondent and the National Assembly cannot be attributed solely to one party and is a political issue to be resolved according to democratic principles. Political expressions or public decision-making on this matter must be made within the scope compatible with constitutionally guaranteed democracy.

The National Assembly should have respected minority opinions and sought conclusions through dialogue and compromise based on tolerance and restraint in relations with the government.

The respondent should also have respected the National Assembly, the people's representative, as a partner in cooperation.

Nevertheless, the respondent excluded the National Assembly, which undermines the premise of democratic politics and is difficult to reconcile with democracy.

Even if the respondent considered the National Assembly's exercise of power as majority tyranny, checks and balances should have been realized through constitutional remedies.

The respondent had an opportunity to persuade the people to lead state affairs in the parliamentary election held about two years after inauguration. Even if the result did not align with the respondent's intentions, attempts to exclude the will of citizens supporting the opposition party should not have been made.

Nonetheless, the respondent violated the Constitution and laws by declaring martial law in this case, reproducing a history of abuse of state emergency powers, shocking the people, and causing confusion in all areas of society, economy, politics, and diplomacy.

As president of all citizens, the respondent violated the duty to unify the social community beyond supporters.

By mobilizing military and police forces to damage the powers of constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly and infringe on citizens' fundamental rights, the respondent abandoned the 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 legal violations that betray the people's trust and are intolerable from the perspective of upholding the Constitution.

Given the serious negative impact and ripple effects of the respondent's legal violations on the constitutional order, the benefit of upholding the Constitution by dismissing the respondent overwhelmingly outweighs the national loss caused by the dismissal of the president.

Therefore, the unanimous opinion of all justices is to pronounce the following judgment.

Since this is an impeachment case, the time of judgment will be confirmed. The current time is 11:22 a.m.

Order: The respondent, President Yoon Seok-yeol, is dismissed.

This concludes the judgment.