Prosecutors File Death‑Penalty Request After Jan 13 Hearing Prosecutors submitted a request for the death penalty at a sentencing hearing on Jan 13 before the Seoul Central District Court, arguing that former President Yoon Suk‑yeol orchestrated an insurrection by declaring emergency martial law on Dec 3, 2024 [1]. They contend the decree breached the Constitution and that Yoon directed the plot from planning through execution, noting the charge carries only three possible sentences: death, life imprisonment, or life without parole [1]. The filing marks the first time Korean prosecutors have sought capital punishment in a post‑1997 era.

Case Centers on Unconstitutional Martial Law Declaration The core of the case is Yoon’s Dec 3, 2024 martial law order, which deployed troops to the National Assembly and the National Election Commission, actions the Constitutional Court previously deemed unconstitutional [1][2]. Prosecutors argue there were no mitigating factors and label the deployment “unconstitutional,” while Yoon’s defense maintains the decree was a legitimate executive measure against anti‑state forces and beyond judicial review [1][2]. The dispute hinges on whether such military use in peacetime is lawful.

Court Faces First Death‑Penalty Consideration Since 1997 The independent counsel filed the death‑penalty request 406 days after the martial‑law declaration, highlighting that South Korea has not carried out an execution since 1997 [2]. The court must now decide the appropriate punishment, with a verdict expected next month, and will consider precedents from the 1996 Chun Doo‑hwan and Roh Tae‑woo cases, where death‑penalty and life‑imprisonment requests were ultimately commuted [2]. This decision could set a new benchmark for accountability of elected officials.

Political Fallout Includes Impeachment and Leadership Change Yoon’s actions triggered impeachment proceedings, a constitutional court ruling, and a subsequent change in political leadership [1][2]. Critics note his selective court appearances and attempts to shift blame to military commanders, while his supporters portray the martial law as a necessary warning to a “paralyzed” legislature [1]. The episode has deepened social division and raised concerns about the resilience of South Korea’s democratic order [2].