The Constitutional Court on Jan. 21 held the third hearing of President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment trial, focusing on key evidence related to the declaration of martial law and insurrection allegations. While the National Assembly, led by the Democratic Party, has revealed that it will withdraw the criminal insurrection charges, the Court did not confirm this. Instead, it appeared to focus on whether the actions during martial law constituted insurrection.
President Yoon denied all four key pieces of evidence related to the insurrection charges, and the Court’s ruling on these facts will determine whether he is removed from office.
① Note on ‘emergency legislative body’ given to Choi Sang-mok
President Yoon is accused of handing a note about an “emergency legislative body” to Acting President Choi Sang-mok, who was the Minister of Economy and Finance at the time martial law was declared. The note, written on a single A4 sheet, allegedly instructed Choi to “block the National Assembly’s budget” and “allocate funds for the emergency legislative body.” However, it remains unclear whether Yoon personally delivered the note, as it is said to have been passed on by an aide. The National Assembly argues that this was “an unconstitutional attempt to interfere with parliamentary powers by creating a body to replace the National Assembly after martial law.”
Yoon denied the allegations, saying, “I never handed over such a note. I only read about this memo in the news after martial law was lifted, and its content is inaccurate and contradictory.” He added, “The only person who could have drafted this is the Minister of National Defense, but he was detained at the time, so I couldn’t confirm it.” A current judge, formerly of the Constitutional Court, commented, “The court should summon Acting President Choi as a witness to verify the claims.”
② Testimonies from military and police regarding ‘arrest orders’
After martial law was lifted, military and police leaders testified that “President Yoon directly ordered to ‘remove lawmakers’ and ‘arrest Lee Jae-myung and Han Dong-hoon.’” These testimonies were recorded in the National Assembly’s minutes, which the Constitutional Court accepted as evidence. However, no direct evidence, such as voice recordings of President Yoon giving these orders, has emerged.
The National Assembly claims, “Yoon directly ordered actions to prevent the Assembly’s resolution to lift martial law.” Yoon’s team dismissed these accusations as “groundless fake news” and denied issuing such orders.
③ CCTV footage of military deployment to National Assembly and Election Commission
The National Assembly presented CCTV footage as a key piece of impeachment evidence, showing military activity at the National Assembly and the National Election Commission (NEC) on the day martial law was declared. The Assembly argues this was a clear act of “constitutional disruption” aimed at taking control of these institutions. The court reviewed 16 clips showing troops landing helicopters behind the National Assembly, breaking windows in the main building, and photographing the NEC servers.
Watching the footage with a stern expression, President Yoon rebutted, “The soldiers entered the National Assembly, but withdrew when the staff resisted,” adding that it was not intended “to interfere with the National Assembly’s resolution to lift martial law.” Regarding the NEC, he claimed, “The deployment aimed to address technical issues identified during a system inspection.”
④ Proclamation No. 1 banning ‘political activity’
Another key piece of evidence is martial law Proclamation No. 1, which banned political activities of the National Assembly and political parties. The National Assembly argues, “Even under martial law, the powers of the National Assembly cannot be restricted. This undermined representative democracy and aimed to eliminate political opposition by labeling them as anti-state forces.”
Yoon’s team claims the former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun copied a template from the military regime era, with the president making only minor edits and not intending to restrict normal parliamentary activities. However, Kim’s side argues that Yoon personally ordered the changes and gave final approval. The responsibility for the proclamation remains unclear, with conflicting claims and no direct evidence.
