South Korea’s ex - President Faces Renewed Call for Death Penalty over Martial Law and Attempted Insurrection

A team of special counsel has once again sought the death penalty for former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was convicted of insurrection over his failed attempt to impose martial law, during a hearing on his appeal against the sentence. According to local media reports, a special counsel team on Thursday renewed its request for the death penalty against Yoon Suk Yeol on insurrection charges during an appeals hearing. The case concerns his unsuccessful attempt to impose martial law in the country.

According to South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency, the team operating under Special Counsel Cho Eun-suk sought the death penalty at the Seoul High Court, where former President Yoon is appealing his life sentence. Yoon was sentenced to life imprisonment in February this year after being convicted of insurrection over his failed attempt to impose martial law in December 2024. His attempt was thwarted within hours following immediate intervention and opposition from the National Assembly. Public prosecutors had previously sought the death penalty for him for the first time in January this year.

Former President Yoon is currently facing a total of eight separate cases, including proceedings related to his martial law declaration, corruption allegations involving his wife, and an investigation into the death of a Marine officer in 2023. On December 3, 2024, Yoon announced the imposition of martial law. In April 2025, South Korea’s Constitutional Court unanimously upheld his impeachment, formally removing him from the presidency. The decision subsequently paved the way for an early presidential election.

The day after a Seoul lower court declared Yoon the mastermind behind the insurrection and sentenced him to life imprisonment in February, he issued a statement through his lawyers apologizing for the brief imposition of martial law. In his statement, Yoon said he regretted the “distress and difficulties” his decision had caused the public. However, he maintained that he stood by the “sincerity and purpose” behind his actions.