On Thursday, former president Yoon Suk Yeol was found guilty of leading an insurrection and sentenced to life imprisonment with labour over his failed martial law declaration in December 2024.
When he received his sentence, hundreds of his opponents cheered outside the court. But the mood quickly shifted to disappointment and anger.
What has the reaction been to Yoon’s sentencing?
Although life imprisonment and the death penalty are in effect the same in a country that has not executed anyone since 1997, many South Koreans see Yoon’s sentence as dangerously lenient.
A Gwangju civic coalition called the life term “a failure to deliver even minimal justice”. Other South Korean human rights groups, civic groups, labour unions and political parties also issued statements expressing dismay.
Democratic party leader Jung Chung-rae, who had prepared a speech celebrating a death sentence, said the verdict was “a clear retreat” from the citizens’ movement that stopped the December 2024 martial law attempt.
International human rights groups opposed the death penalty for Yoon, while acknowledging the gravity of the charges.
Why are people upset about the punishment?
Anger is rooted in South Korea’s history of elite impunity, and the severity of the punishment, rather than a desire for an execution.
In 1996, military dictator Chun Doo-hwan received the death penalty for leading a 1979 coup and the subsequent massacre in Gwangju. His sentence was reduced to life on appeal. He was then pardoned and released in 1997. He lived freely until his death in 2021.
In closing arguments, prosecutors said the death penalty in South Korea’s criminal justice system “does not mean execution but rather functions as the community’s will to respond to crime.”
The criminal code offers only three punishments for the ringleaders of an insurrection: death, life with labour, or life without labour. Thursday’s verdict gave Yoon life with labour, which allows parole after 20 years. A death sentence, offering no chance of parole, would have sent a stronger signal that such acts cannot be mitigated.
What was the court’s reasoning?
Judge Jee Kui-youn cited several mitigating factors: Yoon’s planning didn’t appear meticulous, he attempted to limit force, most of his plans failed, he had no prior criminal record, had long served in public office, and was relatively old at 65.
Critics dismissed the reasoning as perverse. Lawmakers argued long public service should aggravate, not mitigate, abuse of state power. They noted the coup was halted by citizen resistance and parliamentary intervention, not Yoon’s restraint. Progressive newspaper Hankyoreh wrote in an editorial that “the judiciary is showing behaviour that falls far short of citizens’ standards.”
One human rights group pointed to recent German prosecutions of elderly former Auschwitz guards as evidence that state crimes by those in power cannot be excused by age or clean records.
Could Yoon be pardoned?
South Korea has convicted four conservative former presidents before Yoon.
Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were pardoned in 1997. In the democratic era, Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak were pardoned after serving a few years each.
Many fear a life sentence makes a future pardon more politically feasible, whereas death would raise the political cost.
Political parties are pushing an insurrection pardon prohibition bill through parliament. Democratic party leader Jung said it would pass soon, warning that the judiciary’s leniency toward Chun Doo-hwan had “returned like a boomerang” and resulted in “another tragedy”.
How has Yoon reacted to his sentencing?
In a statement released on Friday, Yoon maintained his martial law declaration was “for the nation and the people” and “deeply apologised” for the frustrations and hardships experienced by citizens due to his “inadequacies”. He showed no remorse for the act itself, calling it a “decision to save the nation”.
He questioned whether appealing was worthwhile, accusing the judiciary of a lack of independence, but his legal team clarified the statement did not mean he was abandoning his potential appeal. He urged supporters: “Our fight is not over. We must unite and rise.”