All 8 Judges Unanimously "Dismiss President Yoon Seok-yeol"... 122 Days Since Emergency Martial Law (Comprehensive) [Yoon Seok-yeol Dismissal]

Constitutional Court Rules for Dismissal... "Betrayed Duty to Uphold the Constitution"
Recognizes as Fact the "Arrest of Politicians and Removal of Lawmakers"
Yoon's Procedural Objections Not Accepted

The Constitutional Court impeached President Yoon Seok-yeol on the 4th. With this, President Yoon became the second president in the history of the Republic of Korea to be impeached, following former President Park Geun-hye.

Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae read the impeachment ruling at around 11:22 a.m., stating, "President Yoon Seok-yeol is dismissed." The effect of the dismissal took place immediately, and from that moment, President Yoon lost his position.

At 11 a.m. that day, the Constitutional Court held the impeachment trial of President Yoon in the grand bench courtroom and unanimously accepted the National Assembly's impeachment motion. This came 122 days after President Yoon declared the emergency martial law on December 3, and 111 days after the impeachment motion was filed on December 14 of last year.

Constitutional Court Accepts All Five Grounds for Yoon's Impeachment

The Constitutional Court examined one by one the five key issues in President Yoon's case: ▲the unconstitutionality and illegality of the December 3 emergency martial law ▲obstruction of National Assembly activities ▲issuance of the proclamation ▲attempt to seize control of the Central Election Commission ▲and orders to arrest key political figures, and judged all as grounds for impeachment.

First, the Court found that although there was no national emergency on December 3 last year, President Yoon illegally declared martial law in violation of constitutional requirements. Regarding the so-called 'line impeachment' related to the opposition party's budget cuts, the Court pointed out, "Even if the exercise of the National Assembly's authority is illegal or improper, the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial and the respondent's legal request for reconsideration of bills are normal means of exercising power, so the exercise of national emergency powers cannot be justified."

Regarding President Yoon's claim that it was a 'warning or appeal martial law,' the Court stated, "This is not the purpose of martial law as defined by the Martial Law Act," and "The respondent's claim cannot be accepted." The Court also found the 'fraudulent election theory' cited as the background for martial law to be invalid, stating, "The mere existence of suspicion cannot be considered as a serious crisis situation that has actually occurred," and thus cannot be grounds for declaring martial law.

The Court also recognized as fact the allegation that President Yoon attempted to remove lawmakers gathered at the National Assembly to obstruct the resolution to lift martial law. The Court judged, "The respondent gave orders to the Army Special Warfare Command and others to 'break down the door and pull out those inside' because it seemed the quorum for the resolution was not met."

Regarding the proclamation and the search and seizure of the Central Election Commission, the Court explained that these actions violated "constitutional provisions, representative democracy, the principle of separation of powers, and the political basic rights of the people," and that the search and seizure without a warrant violated the warrant principle and infringed upon the independence of the Election Commission.

The Court also acknowledged as fact that President Yoon attempted to confirm the whereabouts of key politicians and legal figures at the time of the martial law declaration. The Court stated, "The Minister of National Defense instructed the Commander of the Defense Counterintelligence Command to confirm the locations of 14 people, including the Speaker of the National Assembly and representatives of each political party, for possible arrest if necessary," and "The respondent called the first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service to support the Defense Counterintelligence Command, and the Commander requested the deputy director to confirm the locations of these individuals."

Testimonies from former first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won and former Army Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun, who appeared as witnesses during the impeachment trial, were also recognized as factual. President Yoon's side had challenged their credibility.

Regarding the so-called 'withdrawal of the charge of rebellion' controversy, the Court stated, "This cannot be seen as a change in the grounds for impeachment," and judged that "the National Assembly's impeachment motion is procedurally valid."

Yonhap News

"Declared Martial Law in Violation of Constitution and Laws... Shocked the Nation"

After examining all the issues, the Constitutional Court concluded that there was a serious unconstitutional and illegal act warranting the dismissal of the president. The Court stated, "The respondent (President Yoon) mobilized the military and police to damage constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly and violated the fundamental human rights of the people, thereby breaching the duty to uphold the Constitution," and "This is a serious legal violation that betrays the trust of the people and is unacceptable from the perspective of constitutional protection."

The Court added, "By declaring martial law in violation of the Constitution and laws, the respondent reproduced the history of abuse of national emergency powers, shocking the people and causing confusion in all areas of society, economy, politics, and diplomacy," and "The constitutional protection benefits gained by dismissing the respondent overwhelmingly outweigh the national losses caused by the dismissal."

Some justices agreed with the conclusion but left supplementary opinions on detailed issues. Justice Jeong Hyeong-sik stated regarding the principle of non bis in idem in the impeachment motion's resolution, "Legislation is needed to limit the number of times an impeachment motion can be proposed in other sessions."

Regarding the rules of evidence, Justices Lee Mi-seon and Kim Hyeong-duo believed that "the hearsay rule under the Criminal Procedure Act can be relaxed in impeachment trial procedures," while Justices Kim Bok-hyung and Jo Han-chang argued that "the hearsay rule should be applied more strictly."

There were no dissenting opinions opposing the majority view.

The Constitutional Court received President Yoon's impeachment trial on December 14 last year, completed all procedures after the 11th hearing on February 25, and after more than a month of deliberation, delivered the ruling on this day.