President Yoon Suk Yeol attending the second hearing of the martial law-related criminal trial held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on April 21, 2025. [Photo=Yonhap News]  

Your Honor and members of the court,

First, I deeply appreciate your fair and impartial management of this case with professionalism, despite the challenging circumstances over an extended period.

The investigation into alleged sedition following the President's declaration of martial law, the impeachment trial, and the proceedings of this case have not been about evaluating or deliberating on the facts that occurred. Instead, they have been a continuous series of editing, manipulation, distortion, and incitement of facts to derive predetermined conclusions for political purposes. As a legal professional, I feel immense shame and despair at the reality of South Korea where the rule of law is collapsing.

Allegations of Sedition Based on Two Hours of Martial Law 

Following the lifting of martial law after just two hours, some, eager to evade responsibility, approached politicians and spread falsehoods, becoming the kindling for the sedition accusations.

The incitement and propaganda by some politicians and anti-state forces were added to this, ultimately leading to the downfall of the administration. The President, who possessed the highest democratic legitimacy as elected by the entire nation, was impeached and removed from office through a hasty impeachment trial, conducted without proper investigation or deliberation.

In the impeachment trial, the rules of evidence as stipulated by the Constitution and laws were ignored, and due process, including the scheduling of hearings, was not observed. Evidence lacking admissibility was indiscriminately submitted, such as investigative records where the voluntariness of statements was questionable and the right to cross-examine was not guaranteed at all. Legal procedures were completely disregarded.

Witness examinations were conducted in an unprecedented manner, with time limits of 30 minutes and 20 minutes per witness set by stopwatch, and the examination was terminated even if there were remaining questions, a situation never before seen or heard of.

Ultimately, without any regard for discovering the substantive truth, a minimal witness examination was conducted formally, followed by findings of fact riddled with distortion and falsehoods to reach a conclusion.

However, through the witness examinations conducted in this court, not only the court but also the citizens who have been keenly observing this case have finally come to understand the facts of the case correctly.

Fabricated and Induced False Testimonies

The call records between the President, the commanders, and the Chief of Police, which were not submitted during the impeachment trial, clearly revealed that the testimony of Commander Gwak Jong-geun, which was cited as decisive evidence by the Constitutional Court, was entirely false.

Gwak Jong-geun testified that he had ordered subordinate commanders to arrest National Assembly members at the President's instruction. However, it was revealed that Gwak Jong-geun issued these orders to his subordinates before he had even spoken with the President. Furthermore, the testimony of Hong Jang-won regarding the creation of an absurd "earthworm memo" and the testimony of Commissioner Cho Ji-ho stating he received arrest orders during a time when entry was clearly not controlled, were both proven to be entirely unreliable.

There was absolutely no objective evidence that the President had instructed to "arrest National Assembly members" or "obstruct plenary sessions." Instead, what existed were fabricated or induced false testimonies by opposition politicians at the time and public opinion manipulation through false media reports.

This was not merely a matter of establishing facts.

Despite the Director of the Court Administration and Management pointing out the abnormal situation of investigative agencies asserting their investigative authority over each other, the agencies continued with unreasonable investigations, prioritizing their own standing.

Despite Supreme Court precedents ruling that indictments by investigative agencies lacking investigative authority should be dismissed, they committed procedural violations without hesitation, perhaps due to a complacent attitude that such procedural irregularities would not be considered in such a crucial case.

Regarding warrant applications, despite clear legal provisions, the practice of choosing a court based on the propensity of the presiding judge was repeatedly observed, indicating a non-normal situation. As a result, an unconstitutional warrant was issued for search warrants, exempting the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is contrary to the separation of powers.

The execution of warrants was also carried out illegally. The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), which is the subject of the investigation, mobilized thousands of police officers without legal grounds and conducted searches exceeding the scope of search warrants. The execution was carried out without presenting the warrant or obtaining the consent of the person in charge of military facilities.

The President declared martial law, mobilizing 200-300 unarmed troops. However, the investigative agencies seeking to arrest the President mobilized thousands of police officers and forged official documents from military facility commanders.

Attempt to Arrest a Sitting President is Actually Sedition 

It is the attempt to arrest a sitting President, disregarding all legal procedures, that constitutes clear sedition. The martial law declared as a message to the public, involving the mobilization of only a minimal number of unarmed troops, cannot be termed sedition.

The special prosecutor investigating sedition concluded its investigation by defining the martial law of December 3rd as a private coup to monopolize and maintain power and secure a long-term rule. It was claimed that the goal was to seize judicial power through the military, seize legislative power through an emergency legislative body, and eliminate political opponents by force to monopolize and maintain power.

Even the Constitutional Court, which impeached the President, determined that the purpose of declaring martial law was the President's sense of responsibility in the face of the dominant opposition party's unchecked power. However, the special prosecutor is fabricating a novel and delusional narrative of a private coup regarding the President's purpose in declaring martial law.

However, contrary to the special prosecutor's assertion of a private coup, the martial law of December 3rd was not meticulously planned or prepared at all. The President only discussed it with the Minister of National Defense, and no preparations were made for a private coup.

There was no organized group that could be considered the perpetrator of sedition. This is because the President's martial law declaration was intended as a message to the public, and therefore, specific military operational preparations for monopolizing and maintaining power were not necessary.

Special Prosecutor Frames Normal Military Reconnaissance as Provocation to North Korea 

Furthermore, the special prosecutor distorted even the normal reconnaissance activities of the military in a divided nation as attempts to provoke North Korea. If the special prosecutor's logic were followed, it would mean that the President of South Korea should not make any preparations against North Korea.

The President's duties, as stipulated by the Constitution, include the obligation to defend the nation. Normal military activities, such as being vigilant towards and preparing countermeasures against the main adversary, North Korea, cannot be considered preparations for sedition or general treason.

Legally, if one examines whether this case can be subsumed under the elements of the crime of sedition, sedition can never be established.

This is a criminal trial that requires examination of whether the elements of the crime are met based on findings of fact established by strict proof. It is not a political trial, like an impeachment trial, seeking to assign political responsibility. The special prosecutor is attempting to lead this case into a political trial to reach a predetermined conclusion.

The argument that this constitutes sedition is based on the extremely formalistic logic that the military was deployed to the National Assembly, thus neutralizing a constitutional organ, regardless of its purpose or armament, thereby constituting a private coup.

The fact that political rhetoric is openly included in the indictment is no different from the special prosecutor conducting a public trial in the town square and a political trial by an incited crowd.

Sedition is a crime with a legal penalty limited to death, life imprisonment, or life imprisonment in a correctional facility. It is a grave national crime that can overthrow the very existence of the nation.

We are well aware that in our constitutional history, the 12.12 incident, where the martial law commander was arrested and power was ultimately seized, involved an organized group, meticulous prior preparation, armed conflict, and bloodshed, for which severe responsibility was imposed.

In this case, we earnestly request that you meticulously examine whether the state of emergency martial law, which lasted for two hours, constitutes sedition, a crime that warrants a sentence of permanent separation from society due to its disruption of the constitution, overthrow of the nation's existence, and immense harm to the public.

A Message to the Public Should Not Be Framed as Sedition 

No harm to the public was intended by the martial law as a message to the public, and there were no unconstitutional or illegal orders aimed at suspending the functions of constitutional organs. Apart from the fact that martial law was declared, no unconstitutional or illegal acts claimed by the special prosecutor have been executed or even attempted.

A presidential message to the public, calling for a decision from the sovereign people to uphold the Constitution, not to overthrow it, can never be sedition.

Even according to the indictment submitted by the special prosecutor, it states, "There is a responsibility to organize anti-state forces, defend the liberal democratic system, and pass on a proper country to future generations with constitutional values and order. I will do my best for this cause until the end of my presidency."

Can this be interpreted as an intent to overthrow the constitution or a private coup for long-term rule? Rather, it clearly demonstrates the President's recognition of the national crisis and the purpose of resolving it.

Even though the Constitutional Court and the special prosecutor alike acknowledge that the purpose of declaring martial law was the President's deeply troubled decision in response to the national crisis, they are making unreasonable claims for the purpose of fabricating sedition charges.

The special prosecutor even argues that the relocation of the Presidential Residence to Yongsan, where the Ministry of National Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are located, was for the preparation of martial law.

The special prosecutor wrote, "The accused was located within military bases along with the military leadership, and due to the proximity of official residences of key military leaders, including the Minister of National Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Presidential Residence, conditions were created for close interaction between the accused and the military."

However, the relocation of the Presidential Residence had been a consistent presidential pledge since the civilian government, and the President himself explicitly included the relocation of the residence in his campaign pledges. If the special prosecutor's argument is to be believed, it would be tantamount to saying that the President ran for president in order to carry out martial law.

Furthermore, the indictment explicitly states that policy execution was hindered by the relocation of the residence. It is a fact known to every child that the President was unable to do anything due to the obstruction by the large opposition party and the unchecked actions of the legislature. Nevertheless, the special prosecutor is distorting facts in the opposite direction, similar to the claims of a specific political faction.

Such distortion of facts is merely an attempt to shift responsibility for the national crisis and is intended to remove the cause of martial law to fabricate sedition charges.

President Yoon's Courage to Discard Old Politics 

As Minister Kim Yong-hyun testified, had the President followed the old political playbook of compromising with the opposition, giving and taking, he could have comfortably completed his term, received the honors of a former president, and enjoyed a leisurely later life as a national elder.

However, the President considered such complacency a betrayal of the people and contrary to his duty to future generations, and thus declared martial law as a message to the public.

This cannot be twisted into an intention to overthrow the constitution, and it cannot lead to the outlandish conclusion in this court that the declaration of martial law was for the purpose of monopolizing and maintaining power and securing long-term rule.

The independence of the judiciary means conducting fair trials independently of the legislature and the executive branches. It also means making judgments based solely on law and conscience, without being swayed by public opinion or incitement.

We request that this case be examined not based on political justifications or merits, but on the substantive facts confirmed in this court and the legal principles of sedition.

There was no intention to overthrow the constitution, and there was no riot.

There were no unconstitutional or illegal orders from the President, and no harm to the public.

Upon the National Assembly's resolution demanding the lifting of martial law, martial law was immediately lifted, and the constitutional system of the Republic of Korea experienced no interruption or disruption.

We request a verdict of not guilty in this case, which is an illegal indictment, lacks the elements of the crime, and has no evidence whatsoever, as this is a criminal trial based solely on strict proof, not a political trial.

Thank you.

2025. 1. 13.

Defense Team for President Yoon Suk Yeol

Lead Reader: Attorney Kim Hong-il