February 26, 2025
SEOUL – President Yoon Suk Yeol defended his December 3 martial law declaration in a lengthy final argument, apologizing for causing public concern but emphasizing that it was intended to appeal to the public about the “imperial opposition party,” not to oppress people as past military governments had done.
“There may be confusion surrounding the term ‘martial law,’ as well as negative memories from the past. The opposition is exploiting these traumas to incite public fear,” Yoon told the court. “This was not about suppressing the people with force but rather making a national appeal.”
The suspended president entered the courtroom at 9:05 p.m., following a 40-minute closing argument by Rep. Jung Chung-rae, chairperson of the Assembly’s Impeachment Committee. Yoon became the first South Korean president to personally defend himself in court.
In his argument that continued for an hour and 10 minutes, Yoon stressed that his martial law lasted “only two hours,” adding that it was never about personal gain.
“I deployed only 280 soldiers — why would I have declared martial law on a weekday instead of a weekend if my intent was to seize power?” he asked. He also stressed that he immediately withdrew all troops after the National Assembly passed a motion to lift the declaration just after midnight.
While dismissing accusations that he had ordered the military to drag lawmakers out to prevent them from voting, Yoon insisted that he had asked the police to “handle security and maintain order” at the National Assembly, as ‘just a few’ military personnel was dispatched.
Yoon claimed he was concerned that South Korea was in a national emergency that others failed to recognize.
“What may seem fine now could later lead to a major crisis. I saw the country heading toward disaster, like a frog slowly boiling in a pot, unaware of the danger. … Past crises were manageable, but now we are facing an existential threat to our nation’s survival and system,” he said.
He continued to lambast the main opposition party, calling it “an imperial one” and claiming that the party kept engaging in a scheme to oust him out through “continuous political maneuvering.”
“If this is not a violation of constitutional order, then what is?”
He compared his actions to those of US President Donald Trump, who declared a national emergency and deployed troops on his first day in office for his second term on Jan. 20. “While the US may have different perspectives on national emergencies, can we say with certainty that we are not in one?” he asked.
Yoon also revisited claims that North Korean spies may have interfered in Korean elections, arguing that the small deployment of troops to the National Election Commission was merely “to assist with security screenings.” His legal team had repeatedly pointed to alleged conspiracies as justification for the martial law declaration.
Concluding his 77-page closing argument, Yoon pledged to reflect on public criticism.
“I will take to heart the concerns of the people and do everything I can to ensure this serves as a stepping stone for a stronger, better South Korea.”
“Some people say if I get reinstated, I may declare a second martial law. Why would I do that?”
While stressing that he would not cling to his term in office, Yoon said he would focus on constitutional and political reforms in the latter half of his term, if he were to be reinstated.
“I will dedicate myself to swiftly pushing for constitutional amendments in line with the will of the people, creating a constitution and political structure that aligns well with the changes in our society.”
He also indicated that he would delegate his authority to the prime minister to oversee domestic issues for him to focus on foreign affairs, citing the rapidly changing international landscape and complex global crises.
“I plan to focus on foreign relations while delegating significant authority over domestic issues to the prime minister … I will dedicate myself to safeguarding national interests in foreign affairs.”
Prior to Yoon’s final argument, Rep. Jung Chung-rae, representing the National Assembly’s Impeachment Committee argued that Yoon “must be removed from office for the sake of democracy and national progress.”
“On the night of December 3, the night of insurrection, the entire nation watched live on television as armed martial law forces committed acts of violence. The skies echoed with the deafening roar of helicopters, and the ground bore witness to the marching boots of armed soldiers,” he said, adding, “Even the moon’s reflection on the lake was a witness.”
He also stressed that any one who committed an act of insurrection should be punished without exception, including a sitting president.
Tuesday’s hearing was the 11th and final session since the Constitutional Court began proceedings on Jan. 14 under heightened security.
After seven weeks of legal battles over the legitimacy of Yoon’s impeachment, justices will now assess the credibility of key witness testimonies on major issues, including the procedural legitimacy of the Cabinet meeting on the day of the martial law declaration, alleged attempts to seize control of the National Assembly and National Election Commission, and whether Yoon ordered the arrest of key political figures.
From the fourth to the 10th hearings, a total of 16 witnesses — many of them senior military officials — testified. The justices will consider their statements when determining the constitutionality and legality of the martial law declaration.
A final ruling is expected in mid-March, approximately two weeks after Tuesday’s arguments, based on past impeachment trials of former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye.