South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol is at a pivotal crossroads. Impeached by parliament on December 14, his fate now lies in the hands of the Constitutional Court. Should six of the current eight-member panel vote to uphold the motion, Yoon will be removed from office.
Yoon also faces growing investigations into insurrection charges — a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death under local law. In a dramatic turn of events on New Year’s Eve, a court issued an arrest warrant for a sitting president for the first time in the nation’s history.
Amid looming uncertainties, however, pro-Yoon conservatives in South Korea stand firm. They contend that the president’s martial law declaration was both justified and within presidential purview. For weeks, hundreds of thousands of Yoon’s supporters have gathered in Seoul, denouncing the impeachment as illegitimate.
In an interview with Asia Times, Kang Yong-seok, an attorney and prominent right-wing commentator, offered his perspective on the latest developments. A former parliamentarian, Kang has been instrumental in shaping and solidifying the pro-Yoon camp from the sidelines. His two YouTube channels boast over 900,000 subscribers.
A court approved an arrest warrant against Yoon on December 31. What are your thoughts?
The warrant is clearly unlawful. Under the South Korean constitution, sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigation except in cases of insurrection or inciting foreign aggression. The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), the investigative agency that sought the warrant, doesn’t hold jurisdiction over this case.
What the CIO did, therefore, was extend its investigation into Yoon’s abuse of power charge by framing the insurrection allegation as a natural progression of the case. Such jurisdictional overreach, if permitted, would place virtually no limits on the CIO’s authority. Any investigation or evidence gathered under an illegal warrant would ultimately be rendered inadmissible.
Another critical point is the CIO’s “judge shopping” to ensure a favorable ruling. In South Korea, prosecutors often have prior knowledge of which warrant judges will preside on specific dates. The CIO is supposed to request a warrant from the Seoul Central District Court, but upon learning that a judge there was hesitant to approve their jurisdictional expansion, they shifted to the Western District Court with a more accommodating judge.
To many’s surprise, the judge there reinterpreted existing criminal codes to grant a warrant against President Yoon. Those involved in issuing and approving this illegal warrant will face accountability in due course.
Was Yoon’s December 3 martial law decree justified?
Issuing martial law falls squarely within the president’s authority, and the proper procedures have been followed in its implementation. What is truly undermining the functioning of parliament, however, is the majority-opposition Democratic Party’s actions—cutting essential government funding while increasing their own salaries, filing 22 impeachment motions against state officials, prosecutors, and Yoon’s allies, and passing bills unilaterally with minimal oversight. Such antics seem less like governance and more like a prolonged tantrum over Lee Jae-myung’s defeat in the presidential election.
Does Yoon’s action amount to insurrection?
The main legal contention will be whether President Yoon declared martial law to neutralize, through force, state organs–in this case, the National Assembly or parliament.
To convict President Yoon of spearheading an insurrection, investigators must demonstrate that he had the “purpose” of overthrowing the National Assembly and that a “riot” occurred in the process. So far, there is no indication of either. The president also rescinded his decree immediately after the parliament voted to strike it down, further underscoring a lack of intent.
Securing a conviction for insurrection is an exceptionally tall order. Even Lee Seok-ki, a former leftist lawmaker convicted of plotting a rebellion to overthrow the South Korean government during a potential war with North Korea, was not found guilty of insurrection.
There are testimonies that Yoon ordered the military to neutralize the National Assembly.
Yes, but those claims are merely testimonies collected during the investigation. The media once speculated about the president using a secure phone—touted as “smoking gun” evidence—to communicate with military officials during the decree. No such phone has surfaced, and the media has quietly dropped that narrative. It’s also highly implausible that no single individual recorded their conversation while speaking directly with the president.
If you remember, in early December, Hong Jang-won, the first director of the National Intelligence Service, claimed that the president personally called him with a list of arrests during martial law. Yet, those claims have mysteriously vanished.
Similarly, the special warfare commander who made a series of revelations on the opposition Democratic Party’s YouTube channel has now fallen silent. Once the official investigation took off and arrests were made, those who had been so vocal before suddenly became tight-lipped.
The media appears now to be latching onto another supposed smoking gun–a pocketbook allegedly belonging to former defense intelligence commander Noh Sang-won. But what is a diary, if not a collection of personal musings, unverified and limited to one’s perspective?
A similar situation arose during former president Park Geun-hye’s impeachment when a diary kept by senior Blue House official Ahn Jong-bum was presented as critical evidence of a civilian illicitly meddling in state affairs. The courts later dismissed the diary, deeming it circumstantial at best. Frankly, I’d argue diaries don’t even qualify as credible circumstantial evidence.
Will the Constitutional Court uphold the impeachment?
I highly doubt it. As much as we’d like to believe that courts operate independently of politics and public sentiment, they don’t—and the Constitutional Court is no exception. Yoon’s approval ratings have rebounded in recent weeks, with a growing conservative push to invalidate his impeachment, a movement the judges are undoubtedly aware of.
More importantly, the charge of insurrection is far-fetched, and Yoon’s martial law declaration does not constitute an egregious violation of the Constitution–in other words, an impeachable offense.
The pro-Yoon rally is growing larger by the day. Why?
One key factor is that factions within the conservative camp have put aside their differences to ensure President Yoon doesn’t meet the same fate as Park Geun-hye. Many are resolute and will not back down without putting up a fierce fight.
Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon’s role, of course, is central to forming a unified front in the streets. In the same vein, conservative pundits and YouTubers have momentarily set aside their competition to unite in pursuit of a greater cause.
Last weekend, for instance, over 500,000 rallygoers gathered in Gwanghwamun Square to show their backing for Yoon. The ruling People Power Party has taken note of this swelling movement, with lawmakers like Yoon Sang-hyun and Kim Min-jeon stepping onto the stage.
I expect this momentum will continue to build.
