![A broadcast covering the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of former President Yoon Suk Yeol airs at Seoul Station on Thursday. [Yonhap]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/07/09/rcv.YNA.20260709.PYH2026070915420001300_P1.jpg)
The Supreme Court on Thursday confirmed a seven-year prison sentence for former President Yoon Suk Yeol on charges including obstruction of arrest warrant execution by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials. It was the first Supreme Court ruling against Yoon since his Dec. 3 emergency martial law declaration 583 days ago.
The court upheld the lower court's ruling in full, recognizing the CIO's authority to investigate the crime of insurrection and the legality of its arrest warrant execution, and rejected appeals filed by both Yoon and the special prosecutor's team.
The Supreme Court's Third Division, presided over by Justice Lee Heung-gu with Justice Lee Suk-yeon as the lead judge, confirmed the lower court's seven-year sentence for Yoon, who had been tried on charges including obstruction of official duties and abuse of authority.
In an unusual move, the court explained its reasons for rejecting the appeals in open court. The live broadcast of a small-division sentencing hearing — as opposed to a full Grand Bench ruling — was also a first in history. As defendants are not required to appear at the appeals stage, Yoon was not present in court Thursday.
The court accepted the second-instance court's finding of guilt on most of the charges, including obstruction of the CIO's first and second arrest warrant executions, infringement on Cabinet ministers' deliberation rights during the martial law declaration, the fabrication and subsequent destruction of a post-facto martial law proclamation document, the preparation and distribution of false materials to foreign media, and ordering the withholding of encrypted phone records.
The Supreme Court first affirmed that the CIO had the authority to investigate Yoon for the crime of insurrection. Article 84 of the Constitution provides that a sitting president shall not be subject to criminal prosecution except in cases of insurrection or foreign aggression. Yoon's legal team had argued that the CIO could not initiate an investigation into abuse of authority, and that its jurisdiction over insurrection — recognized as a related offense — was therefore also invalid.
The court rejected that argument. "Considering the essence of the immunity from prosecution under Article 84 of the Constitution, the prohibition on criminal prosecution during one's term in office cannot be interpreted as a blanket prohibition on investigation," it said. "Investigation that does not impede the performance of presidential duties or the securing of authority as head of state is permissible."
The court further held that because the crime of insurrection and the crime of abuse of authority share overlapping factual backgrounds, the "direct relevance" requirement under the CIO Act is satisfied, and the CIO's authority to investigate insurrection is therefore recognized.
On the argument that the CIO's execution of a search warrant despite the Presidential Security Service chief's refusal to consent was unlawful, the court ruled the execution was valid. "The security service chief did not provide specific grounds for refusing to allow the warrant to be executed, and there was no recognized risk of serious harm to national interests," the court said, finding the refusal improper.
The court also rejected the remaining points of contention — those raised by the special prosecutor regarding acquitted charges and those raised by Yoon's side regarding convicted charges — finding no errors in legal interpretation.
Yoon was indicted in July last year by the insurrection special prosecutor's team and placed in detention on charges including obstruction of official duties for mobilizing Presidential Security Service personnel to block the CIO's execution of an arrest warrant in January last year, in the early stages of the Dec. 3 martial law investigation.
He also faced charges of abuse of authority for convening only some Cabinet ministers before the martial law declaration — maintaining only the appearance of a Cabinet meeting — thereby infringing on the deliberation rights of nine ministers who were unable to attend.
Additional charges included fabricating a false martial law proclamation document — made to appear as though the martial law had been carried out under a document countersigned by then-Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and then-Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun — and subsequently destroying it, as well as ordering the distribution to foreign media of a press guidance document containing the false claim that Yoon had "not the slightest intention of undermining the constitutional order."
A first-instance court this year found him guilty on a substantial portion of the charges and sentenced him to five years in prison. The Seoul High Court's insurrection-dedicated criminal panel, presided over by Judge Yoon Seong-sik, sentenced him to seven years in April — more than the first-instance ruling but less than the 10 years sought by the special prosecutor's team.
The second-instance court found Yoon fully guilty of obstructing the CIO's arrest warrant execution and of infringing on the deliberation rights of nine Cabinet ministers who were unable to attend the pre-declaration Cabinet meeting.
The appeals court also reversed the first-instance acquittal and found Yoon guilty of ordering the distribution of the false press guidance to foreign media.
It upheld the first-instance guilty verdicts on charges of fabricating a false official document after the lifting of martial law and subsequently destroying it, in violation of the Presidential Records Act and laws on destruction of official documents. However, the acquittal on the charge of actually using the false document was maintained.
Yoon was also found guilty of instructing Presidential Security Service Deputy Chief Kim Seong-hun to restrict investigative agencies' access to encrypted phone records belonging to former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyeong and others, in preparation for the insurrection investigation. Both the special prosecutor's team and Yoon's defense had appealed the second-instance ruling, but the Supreme Court rejected both appeals.
Yoon's legal team expressed deep regret, saying the country's highest court had closed such a significant case "without sufficient deliberation, from the perspective of the rule of law and the warrant requirement that form the foundation of the Republic of Korea's Constitution." The team said it planned to challenge the constitutionality of the ruling through constitutional litigation, including a constitutional complaint.
The CIO said it accepted the ruling as the final judicial determination on the investigative procedures and authority it had exercised throughout the case. "This decision reaffirms the rule-of-law principle that criminal justice procedures must operate in accordance with the Constitution and the law, even in times of national crisis," it said. The case was the first to be heard by the Seoul High Court's insurrection-dedicated panel at the second-instance level.
th5@heraldcorp.com
