President Yoon’s public statement on December 12 read more like a defense memorandum for an accused insurrectionist.Yoon cited the “opposition party’s tyranny” as the first reason for declaring martial law. Yoon’s defense was that the declaration of martial law followed legal procedures and was a warning to the opposition parties. These claims are legally contradictory and run counter to the testimony of those involved, including the martial law command.

President Yoon cited “the opposition party’s tyranny” as his first reason for declaring martial law. He described the opposition parties, including the Democratic Party of Korea, as having paralyzed our government by pushing for theimpeachment of government officials and cutting the budget. “When the largest opposition party, the Democratic Party of Korea, threatened to impeach the chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor and prosecutors who investigate and audit their own corruption, as well as the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea, a constitutional body, I decided I could no longer stand idly by,” Yoon said.

However, Yoon’s reasons for declaring martial law, including the impeachment bill and budget cuts, are all within the law. The Constitution defines the requirements for declaring emergency martial law as “when the country is in a state of war with an enemy, or when social order is extremely disturbed and the performance of administrative and judicial functions is significantly impaired,” and “when it is necessary for military reasons or to maintain public order. There is no connection between the opposition parties’ actions and enemy combat, disruption of social order, or paralysis of judicial functions. There is no basis for calling it a national crisis. The opposition parties can be criticized for unilaterally running the National Assembly, but it cannot be a reason to declare martial law.

Another reason Yoon cited for declaring martial law was the failure of the National Election Commission system. “How can the people trust the election results when the computerized system that manages the election is so shoddy?” Yoon said. However, the computer system of NEC should be fixed technically, not through martial law, which is not a reason to declare martial law. Critics argue that if the NEC cannot be trusted, the legitimacy of the 20th presidential election, which Yoon won, should also be questioned.

Yoon’s logic is that declaring martial law is a highly political judgment and an act of governance. Tae-ho Chung, a professor at Kyung Hee University School of Law, criticized this argument in a phone call, calling it “the logic of the past dictatorships.” “In the wake of the Jeon Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo case, the court ruled that a declaration of emergency martial law can be reviewed to determine whether the requirements are met if the illegality is obvious,” he said.“Yoon brought back the logic of courts captured in the dictatorship era.”

Yoon also emphasized that the martial law was a warning, saying, “There is no such thing as a two-hour insurrection.” He also claimed that the troops were small. “The introduction of troops into the National Assembly, even if it was a small force, was a serious violation of the principle of separation of powers,” Park Jong-hee, a professor of Political Science and International Relations at Seoul National University, wrote on social media. ‘Article 44 of the Constitution guarantees lawmakers’ immunity from arrest, and the independence and autonomy of the National Assembly is the core of democracy.” “Even ‘martial law for a short period of time’ is itself an act of subversion of the constitutional order,” Park wrote, noting that “subversion of the constitutional order is not distinguished by its duration.”

To refute the charge of insurrection, Yoon argued that the declaration of emergency martial law was a warning and the military was mobilized to maintain order. But testimony from those involved refutes this. Kwak Jong-geun, a formercommander of the Republic of Korea Army Special Warfare Command, testified at the National Assembly on December 10 and said he received instructions from Yoon over the phone to “pull out lawmakers.” Kwak also testified that he was ordered to take control of six locations, including the National Assembly, three National Election Commission offices, and the headquarters of the Democratic Party of Korea. There are also numerous testimonies that Yoon directly instructed military and police commanders to arrest and detain politicians from the ruling and opposition parties, including Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party of Korea and Han Dong-hoon of the People Power Party.

Yoon also claimed, “I made sure that the National Assembly officials were not prevented from entering the National Assembly, and that is why the National Assembly members and a huge number of people entered the National Assembly yard, the main building, and the plenary hall, and the martial law lifting proposal was deliberated.” This claim is also contradicted by the martial law decree and the testimony of Police Commissioner Jo Ji-ho. Martial Law Decree No. 1 states that “the activities of the National Assembly, local councils, political parties, political associations, rallies, demonstrations, and any other political activities are prohibited.” Jo testified at the National Assembly on December 5 that he used this decree as the basis for ordering the prevention of lawmakers and other officials from entering the National Assembly.