World news 398K views since yesterday

Yoon defends martial law as prosecutors renew death-penalty demand

South Korea's former president denies leading an insurrection as his appeal concludes, with a verdict scheduled for January 26, 2027.

Channel: MBCNEWS ·

South KoreaStory of November 6, 2026Trari Newsroom

Why this story? One of MBCNEWS's most watched videos since yesterday, with 398,433 views.

MBCNEWS: The news division of MBC, a publicly owned South Korean broadcaster. 6.2M subscribers and 32B views.

[속보] 尹 "각성 촉구 호소형 계엄선포..내란죄 안 돼"..최후진술도 궤변..내년 1월 26일 2심 선고 - [MBC뉴스속보] MBC뉴스 2026년 11월 05일

Things we can learn from the video

Press to jump

0:33Special prosecutors renew their death-penalty demand, arguing that life imprisonment is insufficient to deter future insurrections.
4:09The report compares Yoon's original life sentence with the historical precedent of Chun Doo-hwan's trial.
6:31Court reasoning about limiting violence is contrasted with testimony about orders to break doors and remove lawmakers.
8:44The broadcast examines the ruling that the martial law declaration constituted insurrection and its implications for co-defendants.
15:48Yoon reads closing remarks portraying martial law as an appeal for citizens to scrutinize politics and government.
18:11Prosecutors argue that the assault on constitutional order and lack of remorse justify capital punishment.

Yoon Suk Yeol has told an appeals court that his martial law declaration was an appeal for public attention, not an insurrection, while special prosecutors again demanded the death penalty.

South Korea's Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) reports that the Seoul High Court completed the final hearing in the former president's appeal against his conviction and life sentence. The court set January 26, 2027, for its decision.

The case concerns Yoon's December 3, 2024, martial law declaration. The broadcast revisits the first-instance court's finding that it constituted an insurrection, alongside testimony that forces were ordered to break through doors and remove lawmakers from the National Assembly, South Korea's parliament.

In his closing statement, Yoon argued that exercising presidential constitutional powers while accepting parliament's authority to demand an end to martial law could not amount to insurrection. He said he had anticipated such a demand from the outset and denied ordering lawmakers' arrests.

Yoon also said he had discussed martial law only with then-defense minister Kim Yong-hyun, placing those discussions between late November and December 2, 2024. He disputed prosecutors' interpretation of earlier remarks about emergency powers, arguing that comments made while drinking did not establish that he was planning martial law then.

Prosecutors presented a sharply different account. They described the declaration as a grave attack on the constitutional order and argued that Yoon had shown no subsequent remorse. Special prosecutor Seo Seong-gwang said the life sentence repeated past mistakes of leniency and that a harsher punishment was necessary to deter another insurrection.

The broadcast combines the appeal proceedings with footage of the original sentencing and civic groups demanding the maximum penalty outside court. It also examines a central dispute over punishment: the first court's reasoning that Yoon sought to limit physical violence, set against testimony about orders to force entry and extract legislators.

Published on Trari