Former South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol appeared in court on April 14 for the start of his insurrection trial, becoming the country’s fifth former leader to face criminal charges in the same courtroom.
Wearing a dark suit and a red tie, Yoon entered the No. 417 criminal courtroom at the Seoul Central District Court at 9:50 a.m. and sat silently in the defendant’s seat until proceedings began at 10 a.m.
The first hearing was held under the Criminal Division 25 of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Jee Kui-youn. The courtroom has a history of hosting trials of former presidents Chun Doo-hwan, Roh Tae-woo, Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye.
A total of 11 defense attorneys and 12 prosecutors attended the session.
After confirming Yoon’s identity and address — a residence in Seoul’s Seocho district, where he relocated after leaving the presidential residence in Hannam-dong on April 11 — prosecutors and the defense clashed for nearly six hours.
Prosecutors presented a 120-page slide deck, alleging that Yoon unlawfully declared martial law nationwide based on an unconstitutional decree and mobilized military and police forces to instigate a violent uprising, violating Article 87 of the Criminal Act, which defines insurrection.
In a 93-minute statement, including an opening address, Yoon denied the charges, arguing that the brief imposition and swift lifting of martial law could not be legally construed as an insurrection.
“The claim that this was a pre-planned scenario starting in the spring of 2024 is laughable,” Yoon said. Dismissing allegations that he orchestrated a blockade of parliament, Yoon insisted it was implausible. “It’s nonsense to suggest that a few hundred or even a thousand personnel could completely seal off the National Assembly,” he added, accusing opposition leaders of staging a photo opportunity by climbing over the assembly’s wall.
Yoon maintained that the martial law declaration was a political message rather than an attempt at military control.
Procedural disputes surfaced during the hearing, with Yoon’s attorney Wi Hyun-seok arguing the indictment was unlawfully filed by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, which lacks authority to investigate insurrection cases. Wi also claimed the indictment was too vague for the defense to adequately prepare.
He then requested the court to postpone witness examinations until procedural issues were resolved. “If witness examinations proceed before the defense completes the process of admitting or denying evidence, there’s a risk that even unlawfully obtained material could be introduced into the trial,” Wi said.
Yoon, a former prosecutor himself, said the indictment and arrest warrant were incomprehensible. “Even after 26 years as a prosecutor, I have no idea what this indictment is about. It’s a mess,” he told the court.
He repeatedly intervened during the proceedings to personally dispute points raised by prosecutors.
The defense demanded that key martial law-related officials be called to testify first. Wi argued that from both a legal and procedural standpoint, it would be appropriate to begin with witnesses who had been directly involved in the martial law plan or had contact with the defendant. Yoon agreed, saying, “Those who spoke and communicated directly with me should testify first, followed by others unrelated to me — but right now, the order is completely disorganized.”
Judge Jee decided to proceed with scheduled witness testimonies for the day but said the court would consider adjusting the witness order for future sessions. Prosecutors maintained control over their witness list but said they would review defense requests.
In the afternoon, the court heard testimony from Cho Sung-hyun, head of the Capital Defense Command’s 1st Security Group, and Kim Hyung-ki, 1st Special Forces Regiment Commander. Both appeared in military uniform.
Cho testified that his superior ordered him to control access around the National Assembly compound. Kim said he had received orders from his commander to cross the National Assembly fence and forcibly remove lawmakers.
Cross-examinations and further proceedings will continue at the next hearing, scheduled for April 21.
