South Korean prosecutors seek death penalty for former President Yoon on insurrection charge
Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol attends his criminal trial on insurrection charges at a courtroom of the Seoul Central District Court on April 21, 2025 in Seoul, South Korea. The second trial regarding former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s charge of leading a rebellion hold at the Seoul Central District Court. (Photo by Jung Yeon-Je – Pool/Getty Images)
(SEOUL, South Korea) — South Korean prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who is standing trial on charges of leading an insurrection.
During a 17-hour closing hearing on Tuesday, prosecutors argued that Yoon’s alleged actions posed a grave threat to the constitutional order and warranted the maximum punishment allowed under South Korean law. The former president has been on trial since he was impeached last April on charges that he led an insurrection by attempting to impose martial law in December 2024. Insurrection is one of the few crimes still punishable by death in the country.
“The fact that prosecutors sought the death penalty may be because former President Yoon continues to maintain that his actions were justified and has shown no remorse or acknowledgment of wrongdoing,” Jungkun Seo, a professor at Seoul’s Kyung Hee University, told ABC News Wednesday.
“It was widely expected that the outcome would be either the death penalty or life imprisonment,” Seo said.
South Korea has not carried out an execution in nearly 30 years, and legal observers said the prosecution’s request was consistent with past practice in cases involving former leaders accused of insurrection, even if the likelihood of an execution remains low.
Many lawmakers from the Democratic Party welcomed the call for the death penalty following the hearing.
“Calling for the death penalty for Yoon is not a matter of choice but a necessity and cannot be considered excessive,” Moon Geum-ju, a Democratic Party floor spokesperson, said in a statement Wednesday.
Moon said suggesting a lesser sentence for someone accused of undermining the Constitution and plunging the country into crisis would be an affront to justice and common sense.
Meanwhile, lawmakers from the conservative People Power Party appeared to distance themselves from the former president, declining to issue an official statement on the case.
Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk told reporters Wednesday that the special prosecutor’s sentencing request was not an issue he should comment on, adding that he expects the court to conduct a fair trial.
The presidential office said it expects the judiciary to rule in accordance with the law and public expectations.
Two former South Korean presidents were convicted of insurrection in the 1990s for their roles in a 1979 military coup. Prosecutors at the time sought the death penalty for former President Chun Doo-hwan and a life sentence for his successor, Roh Tae-woo.
Chun was initially sentenced to death, though the sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. Roh was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Both men were released after serving about two years following a presidential pardon, which the government at the time described as necessary for national reconciliation.
The court is scheduled to deliver a final verdict on Feb. 19 at the Seoul Central District Court.
U.S. Navy, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), F/A-18E/F, November 13, 2025. (Photo by Paige Brown/US Navy via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump on Friday said that a second American aircraft carrier will be “leaving very soon” to the Middle East to put pressure on Iran.
As he departed the White House for a trip to North Carolina, Trump told reporters that he’s ordered the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East in case “we don’t make a deal” as negotiations between the U.S. and Iran continue over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Those talks are taking place amid Trump’s threats to take military action against Iran isn’t willing to make a deal.
“Well, in case we don’t make a deal, we’ll need it, and if we don’t have a deal, we’ll need it. If we have a deal, we could cut it short. It’ll be leaving — it’ll be leaving very soon. We have one out there that just arrived. If we need it, we will — we have it ready. A very big force,” Trump said.
When asked how confident he is that negotiations will go well, Trump showed confidence, but said that if they don’t go well, Iran would face consequences.
“I think they’ll be successful and if they’re not, it’s going to be a bad day for Iran. Very bad,” he said.
Later, when asked whether he has a deadline for Iran, Trump remained coy, saying: “In my mind I do, yeah.”
The Ford carrier strike group is expected to leave the Caribbean and head toward the Middle East in the coming days, according to three U.S. officials.
The deployment of the Ford and the three destroyers accompanying it will mean that there will be two aircraft carriers in the Middle East as it joins the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group.
The deployment comes after Trump said earlier this week in an interview with Axios that he was considering sending a second carrier to the Middle East if talks with Iran about its nuclear program did not succeed.
The crew of the carrier and the supporting ships were told on Thursday about the new deployment to the Middle East, according to the officials.
The New York Times first reported the Ford’s new deployment to the Middle East.
The Ford is now expected to return to its home port in Norfolk around late April or early May, according to one U.S. official. The carrier had left Norfolk in late June for what was to be a seven-month deployment to Europe, but in late October it was redirected towards the Caribbean as part of the Trump administration’s large buildup of military forces to counter South American drug cartels.
A U.S. Southern Command spokesperson has issued provided a statement to ABC News saying that “While force posture evolves, our operational capability does not.” It adds that “SOUTHCOM forces remain fully ready to project power, defend themselves, and protect U.S. interests in the region.”
The carrier strike group will once again cross the Atlantic and the Mediterranean for a deployment that could now last as long as 10 months.
The Ford is the world’s largest carrier and its presence in the Caribbean was seen as putting pressure on then-Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his government.
Some of the aircraft aboard the carrier participated in the Jan. 3 raid in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas that led to Maduro’s capture.
Denmark’s then-Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod speaks to the press in Brussels, Belgium, on July 18, 2022. (Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images_
(LONDON )– Denmark’s new government was less than two months old when U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign to acquire Greenland broke into public view in the summer of 2019.
“We thought it was unprecedented,” recalled former Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod, who then was in post and suddenly tasked with a transcontinental fire drill.
Trump’s desire for what he at the time called “essentially a large real estate deal” threw a wrench in the works of a planned state visit by the president to Denmark. The president ultimately cancelled the trip, saying Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had shown “no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland.”
Frederiksen at the time rejected Trump’s proposal as “absurd.”
Kofod, who has since left Danish politics, told ABC News in an interview on Tuesday that the 2019 saga was “a really bad situation for the bilateral relationship.”
“We also saw it as offending a close ally,” Kofod recalled. “We were very surprised that the first major comments he had were, ‘Why can’t I just buy Greenland?'”
Copenhagen, he said, never considered formulating a price for Greenland’s potential sale.
At the time, though, Danish leaders did not believe Trump was “determined” to force a U.S. acquisition of the world’s largest island, Kofod said. Rather, the Danish government saw the proposal as a means to foster more U.S. engagement in and influence over Greenland.
Nearly seven years later, Kofod’s successors — again under the leadership of Frederiksen — have faced a more protracted and aggressive campaign from Washington. Trump has repeatedly said the U.S. will acquire Greenland — “one way or another,” he said earlier this month.
Greenland is a self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. Trump’s second term has seen the president double down on his ambition to acquire the minerals-rich island — despite Danish and Greenlandic politicians repeatedly rebuffing him.
Trump has suggested that U.S. sovereignty over Greenland is necessary to ensure American security and blunt Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic region. A 1951 defense agreement already grants the U.S. military access to Greenland, but Trump has suggested the accord is inadequate and has demanded “ownership.”
The issue dominated this week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Trump said in a Wednesday address that he would not use military force to seize control of the Arctic landmass.
On Wednesday, Trump said during the event that a “framework” of a deal had been reached on Greenland after talks with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Details of the purported agreement are yet to be revealed.
Frederikson said in a Thursday morning statement that Copenhagen “cannot negotiate on our sovereignty.”
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said at a Thursday press conference that Nuuk is “willing to do more in a NATO frame,” but also said they have some “red lines” including territorial integrity, international law and sovereignty.
In Davos on Wednesday, Trump said that Greenland’s mineral deposits are “not the reason we need it,” though also said the professed deal “puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it pertains to security and to minerals.”
Trump’s professed security concerns have prompted Danish efforts to increase military spending in the Arctic and the deployment of small contingents of NATO troops to Greenland.
But the deployments — which the eight European nations involved said were for military exercises to enhance the defense of the region — prompted Trump at the time to threaten new tariffs against the American allies starting on Feb. 1 unless the U.S. was able to acquire Greenland.
That raised the prospect of a new transatlantic trade war, though Trump said Wednesday that he would drop the tariffs citing the purported deal.
European and allied leaders have said they are open to deeper and broader cooperation with the U.S. in Greenland, to address American security concerns and to develop shared commercial opportunities across the mammoth, resources-rich territory.
For Kofod — who said his time in office saw Copenhagen and Washington forge a “path forward” despite tensions over Greenland — any deal should be twinned with a European show of force.
“The first step is power,” Kofod said. Trump may soften his attacks “if he sees that he will have all of Europe — including the U.K., France, Germany — against him, and they are ready to defend Greenland,” Kofod said, plus if he sees that European “retaliation is so massive that it will hurt the U.S. economy and interests.”
“Trump plays with all the instruments he has. Europe has to learn to play the power game,” Kofod said, and “move him to a narrower path if this is going to stop.”
The Danish and Greenlandic experience in 2019 bears striking similarities to 2026. Then, as now, Trump set off a diplomatic storm by repeatedly declaring his ambitions to take control of Greenland.
In both instances, Copenhagen and the Greenlandic government in its capital Nuuk responded by expressing openness to further collaboration, stressing the importance of sovereignty and dispatching a high-level delegation for talks in Washington.
Kofod said the de-escalation of tensions in 2019 was achieved through closer cooperation and modernization in the security sphere. “We took the security concerns of Trump very seriously,” he said.
The period spanning Trump’s first term and that of his successor, President Joe Biden, saw the U.S. reopen its consulate in Nuuk, modernize the Thule Air Base — since renamed to the Pituffik Space Base — and agree a new economic cooperation strategy in Greenland.
Copenhagen and Nuuk, Kofod said, encouraged “constructive engagement” with the U.S. in investment, education programs, tourism and other areas.
Similar measures might help ease the current round of pressure in the High North, Kofod said.
But he added that the future of the Arctic — which was long considered an area of scientific work largely free of geopolitical tensions — will be inextricably tied to security considerations.
Climate change, the subsequent melting of pack ice and the opening of new sea lanes is making the Arctic more navigable and — potentially — more lucrative. Russia’s 15,000 miles of Arctic coastline puts Moscow at the forefront in the region, while China’s declaration of itself as a “near-Arctic state” indicates Beijing’s long-term interest there.
“That’s why Trump is right on the concern about security in the future of the Arctic,” Kofod said. “Any U.S. president will find Greenland key to defending North America and the United States.”
Trump’s efforts “fit his ideology,” Kofod said, saying his bid to acquire Greenland despite broad opposition aligns with the “Donroe Doctrine” — a play on the 1823 Monroe Doctrine by which the U.S. said it would block European interference in the Western Hemisphere — which has in recent weeks been professed by members of Trump’s administration and noted by the president himself.
“There is something to that, that I think Europe hasn’t taken seriously enough,” Kofod said. “But now they are taking it seriously.”
The turbulence will undermine European, American and collective NATO security, Kofod warned.
“For the U.S. it’s also a big self-inflicted problem,” he said. “But I don’t think Trump looks at the world like that. He thinks that NATO is there, it’s important, but it’s not something you cannot live without, because you just can form another alliance.”
Yoon Suk Yeol, South Korea’s president, attends a hearing for his impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025. (SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(SEOUL)– The Seoul Central District Court sentenced former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison Thursday.
The court found him guilty of leading an insurrection linked to his declaration of martial law on Dec. 3, 2024.
The court ruled that Yoon’s central offense was mobilizing military and police forces to seize control of the National Assembly and detain key political figures.
“The deployment of martial law troops to the National Assembly during the state of emergency constitutes ‘rioting,’ a key legal element required to establish the crime of insurrection,” presiding judge Ji Gui-yeon said Thursday. Ji said declaring martial law can constitute insurrection if intended to obstruct or paralyze constitutional institutions.
The court acknowledged political tensions between Yoon’s administration and the opposition-controlled legislature. However, it said those circumstances did not justify declaring martial law under the constitution.
Judges also said Yoon showed no remorse or acknowledgment of wrongdoing during the proceedings, which they considered in determining his sentence.
Yoon’s attorneys criticized the ruling as “a mere formality for a predetermined conclusion.”
“Watching the rule of law collapse in reality, I question whether I should even pursue an appeal or continue participating in these criminal proceedings,” Yoon’s attorney, Yoon Gab-geun, told reporters after the ruling. “The truth will be revealed in the court of history.”
Yoon was taken into custody immediately after the ruling and transferred to the Seoul Detention Center. He will remain there unless the court grants release pending appeal.
If Yoon appeals, the case will move to the Seoul High Court, which can review legal interpretations and factual findings. A final appeal could be filed with the Supreme Court.
Prosecutors had sought the death penalty, arguing Yoon’s actions posed a grave threat to the constitutional order.
Thursday’s ruling addressed only the insurrection charge. Other criminal cases tied to the December 2024 martial law declaration, including abuse of power and obstruction of official duty, remain pending.
In a separate case last month, Yoon was sentenced to five years in prison for obstructing his arrest, the first criminal conviction tied to the crisis.
“Yoon’s sentencing does not represent a national catharsis since most Koreans have already emotionally moved on from the former president,” Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha University in Seoul, told ABC News. “Nor does this televised verdict mark closure because many cases and appeals related to Yoon’s martial law debacle have yet to be fully adjudicated.”
