Ruling Party Calls Yoon's 'Five-Year Sentence' "Absurdly Light"... People Power Party Says "He Already Left the Party" (Comprehensive)

Jeong Cheong-rae: "You Can't Be Satisfied with the First Step"
People Power Party Makes No Separate Statement

On January 16, the Democratic Party of Korea criticized the court's decision to sentence former President Yoon Seok-yeol to five years in prison for charges including obstruction of arrest by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), calling it "an absurdly light sentence for the destruction of constitutional order."

Park Soo-hyun, the party's chief spokesperson, stated during a briefing that day, "The sentence handed down is woefully insufficient to restore the collapsed constitutional order and to respond to the people's demand for overcoming insurrection and achieving justice."

Park further remarked, "In particular, the fact that the sentencing was determined in consideration of Yoon being a 'first-time offender' is not only laughable but also infuriating." He went on to say, "Even more deplorable was the defendant Yoon Seok-yeol's arrogant attitude immediately after the verdict. His behavior-announcing an immediate appeal without the slightest reflection or sense of historical responsibility, while continuing to hide behind the law until the end-is a blatant insult to the people."

On the 16th, citizens watched the trial in the Seoul Station concourse, where the court sentenced former President Yoon Seok-youl to five years in prison in the first trial for charges including obstruction of arrest and infringement of the Cabinet members' deliberation rights. January 16, 2026. Photo by Kang Jinhyung

Ruling Party: "Regret Over 'Five-Year Sentence'... Why So Lenient?"

The ruling party largely pointed out that the sentence for former President Yoon was far too lenient. Choo Mi-ae, a Democratic Party lawmaker and chair of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, said, "It is regrettable that the court sentenced him to five years in prison for obstruction of arrest," and questioned, "Why is the court being so lenient?" She also referenced the 'Cho Kuk case,' sarcastically asking the judiciary, "Where is the resolve that sentenced someone to four years in prison over a certificate related to university admissions interference?"

Kang Deuk-gu, a Supreme Council member, criticized, "Yoon Seok-yeol ignored the judiciary's warrant and mobilized the security service to trample on the rule of law. Yet, if the sentence is only five years, it sends the wrong signal that such obstruction is permissible."

Nevertheless, there was consensus that this marks the starting point for resolving the insurrection. Baek Hye-ryeon, a three-term lawmaker, wrote on Facebook, "The court recognized that all aspects of the CIO's investigative and warrant-requesting authority were lawful. A prison sentence was handed down. Yoon Seok-yeol now has no legal grounds to rely on."

Jeong Cheong-rae, the party leader, wrote on his Facebook page immediately after the court's decision, "You can't be satisfied with the first step. The reckoning for the insurrection has just begun. From five years to the death penalty, we must punish every trace of insurrection under a principle of zero tolerance."

People Power Party: "Now It Is the Judiciary's Turn"

In contrast, the People Power Party did not issue a separate statement that day. Park Sung-hoon, the party's chief spokesperson, told reporters after the sentencing, "We find it unfortunate," but added, "We have nothing further to say to the public regarding the outcome of the trial. We hope for a fair and impartial trial going forward."

Regarding the reason for not making a special statement, he said, "Former President Yoon has already left the party," and drew a line, stating, "Now it is the judiciary's turn."

Meanwhile, on the same day, the 35th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyun) sentenced former President Yoon to five years in prison in the first trial for charges including obstruction of special official duties and abuse of power.