The prosecution insists on requesting the death penalty for Yoon Suk Yeol over martial law

The South Korean prosecution once again demands the death penalty for Yoon Suk Yeol and labels martial law a "pro-government coup d'état".

fotonoticia 20261029063114 1920

fotonoticia 20261029063114 1920

Add DEMÓCRATA to Google

Ask FREN

Published

1 minute

Most read

Elecciones 29N · Encuestas

La media de las encuestas

Media a 27 de octubre de 2026 · 15 institutos

  • PP31,0 %
  • PSOE27,3 %
  • Vox18,9 %
  • Sumar6,3 %
  • Podemos2,9 %
  • ERC2,3 %
010203040ene 2024jul 2024ene 2025jul 2025ene 2026jul 2026

Media del último estudio de cada instituto en 30 días y su evolución semanal desde el 23J. Partidos con al menos un 2 %.

Todas las encuestas

Elecciones generales del 29 de noviembre · Demócrata

The special team of the South Korean Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the insurrection case has again demanded this Thursday the capital punishment for former president Yoon Suk Yeol in the appeal trial, considering the life sentence imposed on him at first instance for his role as the main responsible party in the declaration of the state of emergency last December 3 “too lenient.”

At the hearing held before Criminal Division 12-1 of the Seoul High Court, special prosecutor Cho Eun Seok maintained that there is “no reason to hesitate in imposing the penalty” most severe provided for in the penal code for the crime of leading an insurrection, according to the South Korean news agency Yonhap.

The prosecution described Yoon’s actions as “the highest level of treason that betrays the people’s trust” and maintained that the martial law decree amounted to a “pro-government coup d’état” designed to alter the constitutional order and concentrate power in the long term.

“The commander in chief, who swore to defend the Constitution, instead sent armed troops against the people,” the Public Ministry reproached, underscoring that with this the former president sought to push back the country’s constitutional evolution by four decades. The Prosecutor’s Office also criticized the first-instance court’s ruling for excessively limiting the timelines and objectives of the preparation of the uprising, arguing that the evidence proves prolonged planning over several months.

The Court will continue hearing the defense’s closing arguments in the next sessions, and the date for the reading of the definitive ruling in this second trial will be announced once both sides’ interventions conclude, presumably at the beginning of next November.