December 2, 2025
SEOUL – Another trial began Monday for former President Yoon Suk Yeol, this time over his alleged involvement in South Korean military drones being flown over Pyongyang last year.
The drone deployment, the investigators argue, was aimed at goading North Korea into retaliatory actions that could be used to justify declaring emergency martial law.
The Seoul Central District Court kicked off its first preparatory hearing at 2:10 p.m. for Yoon and three former senior defense officials — former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, former Defense Security Command chief Yeo In-hyung and ex-Drone Operations Command chief Kim Yong-dae, who was indicted without detention. Yoon, Kim Yong-hyun and Yeo face charges of general espionage, a serious offense under the Criminal Act, as well as abuse of authority. Defendants were not required to attend the preparatory session.
Only Kim Yong-dae appeared in court Monday. He is accused of conducting the drone operation itself and was indicted on separate charges, including obstruction of official duties by deceit and instigating the falsification of official documents.
According to the special counsel team investigating the broader Dec. 3, 2024, martial law case, Yoon and his aides ordered the Drone Operations Command to fly an uncrewed aerial vehicle toward Pyongyang in early October 2024, hoping to trigger a hostile North Korean reaction that could justify imposing martial law.
Investigators say the drone breached North Korean airspace on multiple nights — Oct. 3, 6 and 9 — and ultimately crashed near Pyongyang, leaking sensitive military and operational data. Prosecutors also argue that the crash itself constituted a violation of national security laws.
A memo to himself recovered from Yeo’s cellphone has been cited as key evidence. In the note, Yeo wrote: “In an unstable situation, we must seize and exploit a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that can produce immediate results. To do so, we must either create instability or exploit instability when it arises.”
Prosecutors contend that the note reflects intent to instigate a North Korean response.
The special counsel initially considered charging Yoon with foreign incitement, a more severe espionage offense requiring collusion with an enemy state, but instead applied the charge of general espionage, which covers acts that harm South Korea’s military interests or benefit an enemy state.
Under the Criminal Act, general espionage carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a minimum of three years in prison.
North Korea publicly accused South Korea of flying drones over Pyongyang in October last year — allegations that align with the dates cited by South Korean prosecutors.
On Oct. 11 last year, Pyongyang’s Foreign Ministry said drones had infiltrated the capital under cover of night and dropped anti-regime leaflets over the Central Party complex, calling it a grave military and political provocation that violated state sovereignty and international law. The North’s state-run Korean Central News Agency also released photos purportedly showing the drone and the leaflet operation.
An hour after issuing its statement, North Korea resumed its own campaign of launching balloons filled with waste across the border.
On Oct. 14, 2024, Kim Yo-jong, the powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, issued a statement accusing the South Korean military of dispatching uncrewed drones carrying anti-regime leaflets into Pyongyang. In the message released through the KCNA, she said, “We clearly know that the main culprit behind the Pyongyang drone incident is the trash of the South Korean military.”
South Korea’s Defense Intelligence Agency confirmed in a closed-door parliamentary briefing held last month that South Korean military drones had entered North Korean airspace in early October — a revelation that intensified scrutiny of Yoon’s actions in the weeks leading up to the Dec. 3 martial law declaration.
Yoon, Kim Yong-hyun, Yeo In-hyung and Kim Yong-dae are accused of ordering the operation, concealing related documents and instructing subordinates to falsify official records.
The court said it would begin full hearings in January after the conclusion of a separate insurrection trial and hold intensive sessions three to four times a week. It added the trial would proceed behind closed doors after the initial procedural guidance, citing concerns that a significant amount of classified military information could be disclosed during testimony.
Taking into account that the insurrection trial is expected to conclude early next year, the court scheduled the first full hearing for Jan. 12, and said it would conduct three to four hearings per week thereafter.
From the first full hearing onward, the court will allow live broadcasting only for portions legally permitted to be public under the Special Counsel Act governing the martial law and foreign incitement investigations. Under the law, the presiding judge must grant a request for a live broadcast from either the special counsel or the defendant, unless special circumstances prevent it.
Monday’s preparatory hearing was to set the scope and structure of the trial, including evidence submissions and witness lists. The case is expected to become one of the most politically consequential prosecutions in recent decades, given its implications for presidential authority, civil-military oversight and the legality of last year’s martial law declaration.