Court finds operation aimed at provoking Pyongyang to build case for martial law
Former President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to 30 years in prison by a Seoul court Friday, which ruled that a covert drone operation targeting Pyongyang was intended to provoke North Korea and help justify his martial law declaration.
The Seoul Central District Court found Yoon guilty of benefiting the enemy and abuse of power, concluding that the operation was designed to heighten inter-Korean military tensions rather than serve legitimate national security objectives.
Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun was also sentenced to 30 years in prison, while former Defense Counterintelligence Commander Yeo In-hyung received a 15-year term. The court found both men guilty of benefiting the enemy and abuse of power in connection with the same operation.
Former Drone Operations Command chief Kim Yong-dae received a three-year prison term, suspended for five years, over his role in the operation and subsequent efforts to conceal it.
“The defendants decided to create a national emergency by inducing North Korean military provocations and heightening inter-Korean military tensions,” the court said, adding that they used psychological warfare operations to provoke Pyongyang and create conditions that could set the stage for the declaration of martial law.
The case centered on allegations that Yoon and senior military officials ordered multiple drone flights over Pyongyang beginning in October 2024 and distributed leaflets critical of North Korea in an effort to trigger a military response from Pyongyang.
Yoon declared martial law on Dec. 3, 2024.
According to the ruling, Kim Yong-hyun ordered the operation under the pretext of responding to North Korea’s trash-balloon campaign. The court found that the drone mission was part of a broader effort to induce a North Korean reaction, rather than a legitimate military response.
The judges ruled that the operation unnecessarily consumed military resources, weakened readiness for an actual emergency and exposed South Korean military assets and capabilities to North Korea.
They said the operation made future military missions more difficult and helped North Korea improve its defenses.
“The operation created risks of casualties and property damage to our citizens and military personnel resulting from a military clash,” the court said. “It used the Republic of Korea’s military power for private purposes unrelated to national security or territorial defense.”
The court also upheld abuse-of-power charges against Yoon, Kim Yong-hyun and Yeo, finding that they improperly mobilized the military for purposes unrelated to its constitutional mission.
“The order to carry out this operation was intended to create conditions for martial law and ran contrary to the constitutional mission of the armed forces,” the court said.
It added that soldiers had no obligation to obey such orders and that the defendants abused their authority by forcing military personnel to perform duties they were not legally required to carry out.
“Rather than exercising martial law powers in response to a national emergency, the defendants sought to create such an emergency themselves,” the court said. “This directly contradicts the purpose of the president’s constitutional authority to declare martial law.”
Addressing Yoon specifically, the court noted that the Constitution grants the president extraordinary powers, including command of the armed forces and authority to declare martial law, to protect the nation’s existence and security.
“Yoon approved the operation believing he could use those powers for his own political interests,” the court said.
The judges also criticized Yoon for blaming officials who were unaware of the operation, including members of the National Security Office, for failing to report it to him.
The court said the defendants betrayed public trust by using military personnel for political purposes.
“Using soldiers, whose mission is to safeguard national security and territorial defense, for private purposes under the guise of a military operation betrayed the public’s fundamental trust that military power would be exercised only for legitimate purposes,” it said.
Explaining the lighter sentence for Kim Yong-dae, the court said he participated in efforts to conceal the operation, but appeared unaware that it was intended to help create the conditions for martial law.
The court also cited his cooperation with investigators, acknowledgment of most of the facts related to his offenses and lack of any prior criminal record as mitigating factors.
The ruling marks the first time in South Korean constitutional history that a former president has received a court ruling on charges of benefiting the enemy, a serious offense classified as a crime against the state.
Legal observers said the decision also represents the first conviction of a former South Korean president for an offense categorized as an external security crime.
Yoon’s legal team denounced the ruling after the verdict, calling it politically motivated.
“We express deep regret over a guilty verdict that has lent legitimacy to the special counsel’s political indictment,” Yoon’s lawyers said. “How can a legitimate response to North Korean attacks be considered benefiting the enemy?”
The defense said it would appeal the ruling.
jychoi@heraldcorp.com
