At 11:00 p.m. on Dec. 3, 2024, martial law was declared by Yoon Suk-yeol. This 12.3 Martial Law the first such declaration in 45 years since the one imposed following the assassination of President Park Chung-hee in 1979. It was swiftly lifted just 6 hours later through a parliamentary resolution. However, this martial law declaration was not seen as a mere emergency measure but was widely condemned as an act of rebellion that undermined the constitutional order, sparking fierce opposition. Yoon’s abrupt imposition of martial law has been criticized for lacking legal justification, while opposition parties and citizens have been denouncing it as rebellion, launching immediate legal actions and mass protests calling for his impeachment.

  Due to the controversy surrounding the martial law, an impeachment motion against  Yoon was passed on Dec. 14, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.. On Dec. 31, because of  Yoon’s continuous investigation refusal, a historic first in Republic of Korea (ROK)’s constitutional history occurred—a court issued an arrest warrant for a sitting president. He was subsequently arrested on Jan. 15, 2025. As of now, the Constitutional Court has proceeded to the 11th hearing in the impeachment trial. Though nearly two months have passed since Yoon was detained as the leader of an insurrection, he continues to insist that his actions were a legitimate decision made in his capacity as president, rather than an act of rebellion.

  Yoon, in an emergency special address on Dec. 3, claimed that “The opposition has continuously initiated impeachment motions, entirely cut the national security budget, and undermined the fundamental functions of the State. Also, Communist forces of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) continuously threaten ROK,” accusing the Democratic Party of deliberately crippling the administration and orchestrating an insurrection.

  In his final argument on Feb. 25, 2025, Yoon reiterated his stance, stating, “The declaration of martial law was a means to appeal to the public concerning the constitutional disorder and administrative paralysis caused by the opposition amid a national crisis comparable to wartime or an emergency.” He continued to assert that the 12.3 Martial Law was a legitimate exercise of presidential authority, with the opposition’s constitutional violations being the true cause of the crisis.

  However, Yoon’s side revealed contradictions by acknowledging that preparations had been made for post-martial law measures, such as securing emergency funds and establishing a special legislative body. Evidence also surfaced that helicopters had been pre-arranged for the night of Dec. 3. Additionally, during the 8th hearing, it was revealed that martial law forces attempted to seize control of the National Assembly and cut off its power supply. This directly contradicts Yoon’s claim that the military was deployed solely to maintain order, further fueling suspicions that he sought to forcibly dissolve the legislature.

  Additionally, on Dec. 23, 2024, police obtained a notebook belonging to former Commander Roh Sang-won, which contained detailed plans for arrests. According to the notes, the names of opposition lawmakers, including the Democratic Party leader, Lee Jae-myung and Representative Jung Chung-rae, were also found.

  Additionally, the discovery of a memo stating “Induce DPRK’s attack at the NLL” has raised suspicions that the administration deliberately sought to escalate military tensions between the two countries to create a justification for declaring martial law.

  The military mobilization to shut down the National Assembly and allegations that DPRK’s attack was deliberately provoked to justify the imposition of martial law are being cited as evidence that the 12.3 Martial Law is unconstitutional and constitutes an act of insurrection.

  CBT reporters conducted an interview with Yoon Bok-nam, the president of MINBYUN, Lawyers for Democratic Society, to understand why the 12.3 Martial Law was an illegal act and should be considered an insurrection rather than a legitimate imposition of martial law.

  According to Article 2 of the Martial Law Act, martial law shall be declared by the President for the purpose of fulfilling military necessity or maintaining the public security and order when there are belligerency or serious disturbances of social order that considerably impede the performance of the administrative and judicial functions of the State in time of war, a serious incident or other equivalent national emergency. The emergency must be an ongoing crisis, not merely an anticipated future threat. Furthermore, martial law can only be enforced as a last resort, strictly to the minimum extent necessary, and solely through the use of military force to achieve its intended purpose.

  However, the martial law declared by Yoon on Dec. 3, failed to meet these constitutional requirements.

  First, ROK was not in a ‘state of war, armed conflict, or an equivalent national emergency.’

  Second, as indicated in his Dec. 12, address, Yoon invoked martial law solely to navigate his own political crisis, making it an unconstitutional abuse of power.

  Third, Yoon ordered the National Assembly to be sealed off, preventing it from passing a resolution to lift the emergency decree, and directed security forces to forcibly remove lawmakers.

  Fourth, the decree was issued without proper deliberation by the Cabinet. According to Article 89-5 of the Constitution and Article 2-5 of the Martial Law Act, the President may change the type and enforcement area of martial law, or the martial law commander. Additionally, under Article 12 of the Government Organization Act, the Cabinet meeting must be convened by the President unless he is incapacitated. However, in this case, the meeting was convened not by the President but by the Prime Minister, who lacked the legal authority to do so. Some ministers were not even present at the start of the session and had no time to review the agenda. Moreover, no official minutes of the meeting were recorded.

  Fifth, the decree was neither publicly announced nor reported to the National Assembly. Article 77-4 of the Constitution mandates that when the President has declared martial law, he shall promptly notify the National Assembly, while Article 3 of the Martial Law Act requires the government to announce the reason, type, date and enforcement area of the martial law and the martial law commander. However, Yoon did not publish the decree in the electronic gazette or formally notify the National Assembly.

  Rebellion is defined as ‘a refusal of obedience or order by action for the purpose to destroy or take over an established authority or government.’ The martial law declared on Dec. 3 is considered rebellion because it exercised power that disrupted national stability, including obstructing the National Assembly’s legislative functions and paralyzing governmental institutions such as the Election Commission, disrupting the functioning of the National Constitution with the purpose of creating disorder in the National Constitution by summoning armed soldiers and police officers.

  The arrest and detention of Yoon are occurred legal procedures. Following the Criminal Procedure Act Article 200-2 (Arrest with Warrant), where a probable cause exists to suspect that a criminal suspect has committed a crime, and he/she refuses or is likely to refuse the request of appearance without good cause, a prosecutor may arrest the criminal suspect with an arrest warrant issued by a judge of the competent district court upon request of the prosecutor.

  Yoon repeatedly refused voluntary attendance requests and was subsequently arrested under a legally issued warrant due to his behavior. Therefore, the PPP members’ claim that the arrest warrant issued by the Seoul Western District Court is unlawful lacks any reasonable basis, as all actions were occurred properly under legal procedures.

  The 12.3 Rebellion serves as an opportunity to reflect on ROK’s current situation. There are many people who hold negative views about values that we consider fundamental, and I felt a sense of crisis that ROK’s hard-won democracy could collapse. I will actively lead the lawyer’s group to prevent a repetition of this situation. Finally, I hope CBNU students will continue to take an interest in the 12.3 Rebellion, and join us in efforts to restore our society.

  The 12.3 Rebellion triggered strong resistance, as it was seen as an intimidation of the public’s freedom and safety. Additionally, the PPP members who mention Impeachment Trauma (referring to the former president, Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in 2017 and also belonged to the PPP) protect Yoon from impeachment while disregarding the public’s sentiment. Meanwhile, Yoon continues to deny the rebellion charge. As a result, the public is furious and is steadily hosting rallies urging for Yoon’s expulsion.

  The CBT reporters interviewed Choi Bo-min, an activist from the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), Coordinator of the Judical Watch Center, and the Press Respond team of BISANG Action for Yoon Out & Social Reform (BISANG Action) to hear the civic group’s opinion.