Sentence was pronounced in Seoul on Thursday. The court found that Jun's actions were an effort to forcefully violate the constitutional order and met the grounds for a crime designated in South Korea as a coup. It is in this category that the law provides for the most severe sanctions: for the leader the death punishment or life sentence. The D.A. claimed the death penalty, but the court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
According to the "AP", 1 of the arguments that would influence the choice of life imprisonment alternatively of the death punishment was the fact that during the wartime events there were no fatalities. At the same time, the judges assessed that the scale and intent of the action struck the foundations of the political system, as it was about trying to circumvent the opposition-controlled parliament and taking control of key institutions.
The point of ignition was 3 December 2024.
The trial afraid events of 3 December 2024, erstwhile president Jun Suk Jeol, who was then in office, declared martial law. During the crisis, military troops and police entered the building of the National Assembly and the aim was to block the work of parliament and halt any politicians. However, Parliament managed to assemble and voted to repeal the martial law. The full operation lasted about 6 hours and ended with a withdrawal of forces.
For the prosecution, it was a key proof that it was not a "gest" or a declaration itself, but an effort to paralyze the state's institutions utilizing a force apparatus. This explanation was divided by the court, considering that the actions had the dimension of the coup.
It's not his first sentence.
Jun Suk Jeol consistently rejected the charges. In the trial he argued that the martial law was "warning" and "symbolic" and that it was about combating the paralysis of the state and the alleged "anti-state forces". According to media reports, he showed no remorse for the chaos caused by the decision of 2024. "Reuters" reports that the erstwhile president remains at the detention centre and an appeal is expected.
Let us remind you that the erstwhile president has already heard a five-year conviction in a separate case concerning, among another things, abuse of power and blocking attempted arrests involving presidential protection. In the background, there were besides judgments against those in the erstwhile administration. "AP" and "Guardian" described penalties for parts of erstwhile advanced officials who were found to be co-responsible for actions during the war state crisis.
