UNJournal Jon Lee | The following is the English version of the full text of President Yoon Suk-yeol’s closing statement at the impeachment trial, which was translated by 'Deepl.” It is assumed that there may be errors in the English translation. — Ed.
Honorable members of the Constitutional Court and beloved people who have been following this trial with interest, it has been 84 days since I declared emergency martial law on December 3 last year.
These have been some of the most difficult days of my life, but they have also been a time of gratitude and reflection.
As I took stock of myself, I realized that I have been so undeservedly loved by our people.
While I was grateful, I was also saddened and heartbroken that I was not doing my job when they entrusted me to do it.
On the other hand, I also felt a heavy sense of responsibility as I realized that many people still had faith in me. I would like to start by saying that I am sorry and grateful to the people.
When I declared the state of emergency and lifted it a few hours later, many of you didn't understand.
Some of you are still puzzled, and the word martial law conjures up negative memories of the past, and the big opposition parties and insurgency operatives are exploiting this trauma to incite the people.
However, December 3 martial law is something completely different from the martial law of the past: it is not a martial law that oppresses people by force, but a public appeal that borrows the form of martial law. The declaration of December 3 Emergency Martial Law is a declaration that this country is in a state of national crisis and a desperate appeal to the sovereign people to face the situation and join us in overcoming it.
First and foremost, I can state unequivocally that this was never a choice for me, Yoon Seok-yul, as an individual. I was already at the pinnacle of power, the presidency. The easiest and most comfortable path for a president is to spend five years in office in peace, compromising moderately with various forces in society and saying what sounds good to everyone, without having to do anything difficult or dangerous.
If you don't want to work hard, you don't have to fight hard, and you don't have to make difficult choices. If you work moderately for five years, you can spend a comfortable old age while enjoying the respect of an outgoing president. If I'm only thinking about my own life, I have no reason to choose martial law, which can be fiercely attacked by political opponents.
When I decided to impose martial law, I knew that I was facing an enormous challenge: a huge opposition party claimed that I had imposed martial law in order to dictate and extend my rule. It's a frame-up to frame me for rebellion.
If that was really my intention, why would I have deployed a mere 280 non-functional troops, why would I have declared martial law on a weekday instead of a weekend, and why would I have moved the troops after declaring martial law?
According to the Tribunal's evidence, only 106 troops entered the National Assembly before the resolution calling for martial law to be lifted, and only 15 troops entered the main building. The reason why 15 of them broke windows is that their duty stations were in the main building and the entrance was blocked by citizens, so they looked for unlit windows to avoid clashes.
In addition, all troops were immediately withdrawn after the resolution calling for disengagement was made. Due to the small number of troops deployed, the police were called in to guard the exterior of the National Assembly and maintain order.
From the beginning, I made it clear to the Defense Minister that the purpose of the emergency martial law was to “appeal to the public” and that it would not last long, as the parliamentary demand to lift martial law would quickly follow.
However, it was not possible to communicate this to military commanders in advance.
So, by sending in a minimum number of troops, unarmed, we clearly limited the military's mission to security and order. If you send in a large number of armed troops, no matter how careful and restrained they are, it's easy for them to clash with the crowd. We prevented that from happening, and the actual outcome was not unexpected. That's why I gave clear instructions to the defense minister: a small number of troops, unarmed, experienced soldiers.
And yet the big opposition is calling it a civil war.
Is there such a thing as a two-hour civil war, when it's less than two hours of troops, when you announce to the whole world, to the whole country, on the airwaves that you're going to start, and then you immediately withdraw your troops and stop because the National Assembly tells you to stop?
The allegation by the big opposition that the President has taken over the National Assembly and is trying to start a civil war is nothing more than a propaganda campaign to bring the President down somehow.
It breaks my heart to see the public servants who have been tasked with martial law and maintaining order under the President's legal authority to declare martial law, now being tortured by this civil war propaganda campaign. These are people who are already at the top of their fields, who know that a long-term dictatorship is unthinkable in the reality of our country, and who could not ask for anything more. They were just doing their jobs under the President's legal authority.
So, justices of the Supreme Court and the American people, when you're in the position of the president and you have a lot of information, you see a lot of things that other people don't see, problems that don't show up on the surface.
You see things that seem fine now, but will become a crisis in the future.
Like a frog in a slowly boiling pot, unaware of the reality in front of him, he sees the country heading toward a precipice. You might ask, when was there ever a time when it wasn't a crisis?
But if previous crises have been at the level of a flash in the pan, this is a crisis of national existence, a crisis of a whole system.
On his first day in office, President Trump declared a national emergency and deployed the military. Whether the U.S. is in a national emergency or not may vary. But it's clear that the president is determined to defend the American people against the crises facing the country, including illegal immigrants, drug cartels, and energy shortages.
But what about the reality of our country? Can we say with certainty that we are not in the midst of a national emergency? A combination of sovereignty-violating forces from outside our borders, including North Korea, and anti-state forces within our own society, pose a serious threat to our national security and continuity. They are pushing our society into conflict and chaos with fake news, public opinion manipulation, and propaganda.
We can easily see the true nature of these anti-state forces by looking at the case of the Democratic Trade Union Confederation espionage group that was caught in 2023. They were in contact with North Korean agents, received direct orders, and handed over information on military facilities to North Korea. They staged a general strike in accordance with North Korea's orders, opposed President Biden's visit to the United States, opposed the U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises, and protested against the Itaewon tragedy.
Right after the last presidential election, North Korea even gave specific instructions to “ignite the flame of impeaching the president.” In fact, a rally to “preemptively impeach Yoon Suk-yeol” was held on March 26, 2022, and by early December 2024, a total of 178 rallies were held to remove and impeach the president.
The rallies were attended by construction unions, media unions, and others under the umbrella of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, and even members of the largest opposition party took to the podium. Wasn't this a North Korean directive?
Some people say, “There are no spies in the world these days. However, espionage has not disappeared, but has evolved into a more subversive activity that undermines South Korea's liberal democracy. However, our society's defense shield against such espionage activities has become weaker and has holes in it.
The National Intelligence Service's counterintelligence investigative powers have been stripped from the National Security Agency since January 2024 due to legislation imposed by the previous Democratic Party administration. This has led to a situation where espionage cases must be investigated by a specialized agency for a long period of time, and the police, who lack the expertise and experience, have been handed over to the NIS without adequate time to prepare.
This has created an environment where espionage is thriving, and even if they are caught, the trials are being held up for long periods of time. There are currently four espionage cases under trial: the Korean Laborers' Union Espionage Group, the Changwon Espionage Group, the Cheongju Espionage Group, and the Jeju Espionage Group.
However, the Cheongju espionage case took more than 29 months to reach a verdict in the first trial, and the Korean Laborers' Union espionage case took one year and six months to reach a verdict in the first trial. The spies were released after the expiration of their detention period and walked the streets until they were brought to justice in the first trial. The Changwon espionage case has been in limbo for nearly two years, and the Jeju espionage case has been in limbo for one year and 10 months. They have all been released.
We can't catch spies, and when we do, we can't punish them properly - is this normal?
Nevertheless, the major opposition parties are busy defending the labor unions, stripping the NIS of its counterintelligence investigative powers, and even calling for the abolition of the National Security Act. Even the police's special expenses for counterintelligence investigations have been cut to zero.
Last year, the Chinese were caught flying drones and filming our military bases, the National Intelligence Service, international airports, and domestic U.S. military installations. To prosecute them for espionage, the law would have to be amended, which the main opposition party stubbornly refuses to do.
Industrial espionage, the leaking of nationally critical technologies, has also been on the rise. The theft of semiconductors, displays, and other technologies is worth trillions of won, with two-thirds going to China. China has a draconian “anti-espionage law” that allows it to detain citizens arbitrarily for taking a single wrong photo, and the main opposition party is blocking even the amendment of the Espionage Act to prevent industrial espionage. The main opposition party is also pushing for an amendment to the Defense Business Act to require parliamentary consent to export defense products.
This would require the submission of secret defense data to the National Assembly, and if the opposition opposes it, the export of defense products would be blocked.
Who can guarantee that classified defense information submitted to Congress will be properly secured and not fall into the hands of hostile forces? Would other countries want to buy our defense products if it were leaked like this? It's like saying we shouldn't sell defense exports to the free world because North Korea, China, and Russia don't want them. Defense exports are not just about making money.
It's about strengthening our security by building strategic alliances with our export partners and, by extension, defense cooperation with many countries in the free world. Who does it help to discourage, rather than encourage, these defense exports?
The big opposition is also working to undermine our national defense and cripple our military. They are sending troops to Ukraine and trying to establish military ties with Russia. It's a very serious security threat to us.
And yet, when we tried to send observers to look into this, the ruling opposition fiercely blocked it, even going so far as to impeach then-Defense Minister Shin Won-sik, claiming that even legitimate security activities of our military, such as sending observers to Ukraine and reviewing our response to North Korean loudspeakers and filth balloons, are foreign policy crimes.
It has accused the president of being a “warmonger” for trying to protect the safety of the country and its people, labeled the joint U.S.-Japan drills against the North Korean nuclear threat as an “extreme pro-Japanese act,” and even went so far as to state in its first impeachment bill that “antagonizing North Korea, China, and Russia” is grounds for impeachment.
If that's not a national crisis, I don't know what is... a 190-seat opposition party that is not on the side of our country and our people, but on the side of North Korea, China, and Russia.
Who can guarantee that classified defense information submitted to Congress will be properly secured and not fall into the hands of hostile forces? Would other countries want to buy our defense products if it were leaked like this? It's like saying we shouldn't sell defense exports to the free world because North Korea, China, and Russia don't want them. Defense exports are not just about making money.
It's about strengthening our security by building strategic alliances with our export partners and, by extension, defense cooperation with many countries in the free world. Who does it help to discourage, rather than encourage, these defense exports?
The big opposition is also working to undermine our national defense and cripple our military. They are sending troops to Ukraine and trying to establish military ties with Russia. It's a very serious security threat to us.
And yet, when we tried to send observers to look into this, the ruling opposition fiercely blocked it, even going so far as to impeach then-Defense Minister Shin Won-sik, claiming that even legitimate security activities of our military, such as sending observers to Ukraine and reviewing our response to North Korean loudspeakers and filth balloons, are foreign policy crimes.
It has accused the president of being a “warmonger” for trying to protect the safety of the country and its people, labeled the joint U.S.-Japan drills against the North Korean nuclear threat as an “extreme pro-Japanese act,” and even went so far as to state in its first impeachment bill that “antagonizing North Korea, China, and Russia” is grounds for impeachment.
If that's not a national crisis, I don't know what is... a 190-seat opposition party that is not on the side of our country and our people, but on the side of North Korea, China, and Russia.
The big opposition party is trying to cripple our military by cutting the core defense budget. They claim they're only cutting 0.65% of the total budget. But it's where that 0.65% is that matters.
It's like taking out a person's two eyes and saying they only cut two eyeballs from their entire body.
The defense budget cut by the big opposition is the eyeball of our military.They slashed the budget for reconnaissance assets, which are key to the “kill chain” to preemptively strike North Korea's nuclear and missile sites.
The budget for the Jiwi reconnaissance project, a core power, was cut by 485.2 billion won from 2024, and the project to improve the performance of the tactical datalink system was cut by 78%.
The KAMD, or Korean Missile Defense System, which intercepts missiles flying toward our country, is also at risk of being cut.
The budget of 11.59 billion won for the long-range anti-ship guided missile project was cut by 96%, leaving only 500 million won. The R&D project for precision guided artillery shells was cut by 84%.
Just as you can't fight with a blind fist, even the best weapons are useless without surveillance and reconnaissance assets.
On top of that, North Korea's drone attacks have recently become the biggest threat, and we've cut a whopping 9.954 billion won out of our 10 billion won budget for drone defense, putting us out of business.
I'm not sure who's directing these cuts, and I'm not sure what they're doing.
In addition, the previous Democratic administration drastically cut the number of investigators at the National Counterintelligence Command by about two-thirds, severely damaging intelligence and counterintelligence activities for the military and defense.
It also transferred individuals who were involved in past espionage cases to key positions in the National Intelligence Service, leaving the organization unclear whether it is a counterintelligence agency or an information leakage agency.
The same people who were responsible for these things during the previous government are still at the center of a major opposition party, undermining national security.
Our government has tried to rebuild the NIS as the backbone of national security, and has worked hard to strengthen the capabilities of the military's counterintelligence, but we have not yet gotten to the root of the problem, which is easy to break, but difficult and time-consuming to build.
My judgment is that this is a situation that looks fine on the surface, but in reality is a national crisis on par with wartime.
Before blaming the president's perception of the opposition, I think it's important for the big opposition parties to show their responsibility and trust in the country. I am a person who is willing to dialog and compromise with all political forces, as long as we are in agreement on the principles of a liberal democratic constitution, national security, and the defense of core national interests.
Where is the left or the right when it comes to working for the good of the country and its people?
However, we must prevent freedom-denying communism, one-party dictatorship, and materialistic totalitarianism from infiltrating our country through various tricks.
We must not compromise and bargain with these forces. We can trade with countries that do not share our values, and we can seek international cooperation and mutual benefit. But we must prevent them from influencing and infiltrating our political system. That is political security, which is as important as national defense. It is the way to protect liberal democracy.
The last thing a political party in a liberal democracy should do is to advocate for these forces and collaborate with them.
Members of the Constitutional Court, and the people of the country, the big opposition has been calling for the preemptive impeachment of the president even before I took office, and has been paralyzing the functioning of the government with line-item impeachment, legislative runaway, and budget runaway. The big opposition claims that these are legitimate exercises of parliamentary power, but the constitutional power of the parliament is given to serve the people.
When they misuse that power to paralyze the government for their own political ends, it is nothing short of a disruption of the constitutional order.
The opposition is also trying to foment civil unrest by claiming that I have tried to paralyze Parliament with martial law.
However, the opposition has been consistently and persistently paralyzing the government since I became president. They have wielded the power of the National Assembly as if paralyzing the government was their only goal.
Between the two-and-a-half hours of emergency martial law that did not prevent members of parliament and their staff from entering or leaving the National Assembly, and the huge opposition that has been paralyzing the government with line-item impeachment and legislative budget bashing for two and a half years since I took office, which side has been paralyzing and usurping the other side's powers?
Didn't you just recently conduct impeachment trials against prosecutors such as the chief prosecutor of the Central District?
They said they lied at a press conference, but they didn't actually appear at the press conference, or they said they gave false testimony at the National Audit Service, but they didn't actually appear at the National Audit Service. Even if the basic reason for impeachment was wrong, they suspended them from their duties first.
Is this really normal?
The impeachment of public officials by a major opposition party is not only paralyzing the government, but is also leading to the collapse of the constitutional order.
In the aftermath of the Itaewon tragedy, the main opposition party called for the truth and used the tragedy as a political tool to impeach the Minister of Public Administration and Security. In a directive sent by the North Korean government to the spy ring of the Korean Laborers' Union, it reads.
'Take this extraordinary tragedy as an opportunity to maximize the anger of all walks of life, focusing on creating a political situation like the struggle for the truth about the Sewol ferry disaster within society.
The big opposition parties have done virtually the same thing as North Korea's spy ring, which is called “seditious impeachment” to increase conflict and confusion in society.
The giant opposition party impeached prosecutors investigating their own party leaders, and even impeached the Seoul Central District Prosecutor.
While impeaching a prosecutor is an obstruction of justice in and of itself, it also serves to intimidate the judges who are watching.
It's a “bulletproof impeachment” designed to stop prosecutors from investigating the opposition leader and to intimidate the judges who will be judging his crimes.
The ruling party even impeached the Auditor General, who was auditing the previous government's transfers. The ruling party included the audit of the “alleged deliberate delay in the official deployment of THAAD” as a reason for impeachment.
The case is an espionage case in which four high-ranking members of the security line of the previous Democratic Party government handed over state secrets, including THAAD deployment, operation name, operation date, and operation content, to an official at the Chinese Embassy in Seoul. The National Audit Office caught them and referred the case to the prosecutor's office for investigation, which is grounds for impeachment. This is a 'transfer impeachment' to cover up their espionage. Impeaching the head of the National Audit Office, a constitutional institution, is a serious act of constitutional destruction in itself, but seeing the transfer impeachment cover up the espionage is a catastrophic crisis that is destroying liberal democracy.
Meanwhile, the government ministries are spending huge amounts of taxpayer money. If the heads of these ministries are suspended by impeachment charges, paralyzing or severely impairing their functioning, how much damage and harm will be done to the country and its people in terms of opportunity cost and financial losses?
While the opposition is indiscriminately impeaching public officials and using taxpayer dollars to pay for their defense lawyers, the falsely impeached officials are forced to fund their defense lawyers out of their own pockets while suspended from office. Government officials are understandably intimidated by this kind of behavior.
The opposition is using “sedition impeachment,” “bulletproof impeachment,” and “transfer impeachment” to bring down South Korea.
Among Korean elections, the presidential election has the longest duration and the most public attention.
The democratic legitimacy of a straight presidency carries different weight than that of other elected officials. In the past, Korea's democratization movement was all about securing a straight presidency. However, as soon as the presidential election was over, the major opposition parties, in solidarity with their sympathizers, began a preemptive impeachment and removal campaign against the president-elect, who had not yet taken office, and for the past two and a half years, they have continued to impeach government officials and attack legislation and budgets aimed solely at bringing down the president.
If this is not unconstitutional behavior, then what is?
Furthermore, this persistent unconstitutional behavior by the largest opposition party is based on a perception of national identity and foreign relations that is far removed from the spirit of a liberal democratic constitution.
Therefore, line-item impeachment and legislative budget bombing to topple a straightforward president are, in a sense, destructive of the liberal democratic constitutional order.
We often call it an imperial presidential system with a presidential-centered power structure, but we are not in an era of an imperial president, but of an imperial opposition, and the imperial opposition's runaway power is causing a crisis of Korea's existence.
If I were really an imperial president, would I have had the Public Security Service, the police, and the prosecutor's office fighting over who would investigate me, and the Public Security Service, which has no authority to investigate rebellion, going warrant shopping and forging official documents to arrest me?
With a total of only 570 troops under emergency martial law, they mobilized over 3000-40000 police forces at the presidential residence to illegally arrest one man. Between the president and the huge opposition, which side is wielding imperial power and destroying the constitutional order?
My decision to impose martial law was driven by a sense of urgency, a sense that I could no longer ignore the impending crisis in this country.
I wanted to make the sovereign people aware of the anti-national viciousness of this giant opposition party and appeal to them to stop it through vigorous monitoring and criticism.
In desperation to prevent paralysis of the state and the collapse of the liberal democratic constitutional order, and to normalize the functioning of the state, I declared martial law. 12.3 The declaration of martial law is a declaration that the country is in a state of crisis and emergency.
It is not an attempt to suppress the people and restrict their fundamental rights, but an earnest appeal to the people, who are sovereign, to take direct action to overcome the emergency.
The huge opposition party launched an impeachment campaign against me the day I lifted martial law at the behest of the National Assembly, but martial law is not a crime; it is a legitimate exercise of the president's power to overcome a national crisis.
I declared emergency martial law through an emergency cabinet meeting and broadcast it on television, deployed a minimum number of troops to the National Assembly to maintain order, and when the National Assembly voted to lift it, I immediately withdrew the troops and convened a cabinet meeting to lift martial law.
As we all know, in 2023, state institutions, including the National Election Commission, were severely hacked by North Korea.
The NEC was notified of this by the National Intelligence Service, but unlike other state agencies, the NEC did not respond to the inspection properly, and some of the inspections revealed serious security problems after crying and eating mustard, so the NEC sent a small force to screen the NEC's computer system. The security of the NEC's computer system, which is directly related to the election process, is a core public good and public asset of our liberal democratic system.
Moreover, in light of the large number of fake and fraudulent ballots that have been revealed in election lawsuits, and the statistical and mathematical arguments that the election results are far from convincing, the need for a transparent inspection of the NEC's computer system has been consistently raised. It is difficult to understand what part of these actions is criminal and criminalized.
If emergency martial law itself is illegal, why is there a martial law, and why does the Joint Chiefs of Staff have a martial law section?
Dear Members of the Constitutional Court, and Dear People, I first declared my political participation on June 29, 2021.
I was well aware that the presidency is not a path of glory, but a path of punishment. Some people who have watched the presidency very closely have even discouraged me, saying that the presidency in our country is a path of curses.
But as the constitutional order of liberal democracy was crumbling, I wanted to protect the country, so I entered politics.
When I entered politics, I made a promise to the people. I promised to build a country where the youth, who will bear our future, those who have sacrificed for the country, those who have dedicated their lives to industrialization, those who are committed to democracy, and those who pay their taxes faithfully, will not be angry.
We made a promise to the people that we would build a dynamic country where young people can run wild, a country of innovation where freedom and creativity abound, a country where the weak are not shunned, a country that shares values with the international community and fulfills its responsibilities.
I promised the people that I would stand up to the big boys and the cartel of interests and give them back the sovereignty that had been stolen from them. Since that day, I have never forgotten this promise, not even for a moment. After I was elected president by the people, I have worked tirelessly to fulfill this promise, and nothing has been easy.
The external environment continued to be challenging due to the global crisis, and the previous Democratic Party government's misguided small town and real estate policies continued to hinder our economy and people's lives.
However, I believed that any problem can be solved with hard work, and in fact, I was able to solve one problem after another by working with our companies and the Korean people. There have been many highs and lows, and there have been many lows.
One of the most rewarding was pushing for better treatment of uniformed public servants who protect our national security and public safety.
While the previous Democratic administration was hell-bent on anti-Japanese propaganda, under my administration, we have surpassed Japan in per capita GDP, and the gap in exports between us and Japan, an economic powerhouse with more than two and a half times our population, has narrowed to just a few billion dollars.
That's a hundredth of what it was 20 years ago, and a few tenths of what it was under the last Democratic administration.
I also have fond memories of the 30 town hall meetings we held last year. We listened directly to people's difficulties and solved many problems on the spot, laughing and crying with the people.
We traveled to all regions of the country, including the Seoul metropolitan area, Yeongnam, Honam, Chungcheong, Gangwon, and Jeju, and discussed ways to develop the region together. I wanted to make sure that our people can live happily with fair opportunities no matter where they live in the country. So that our people can enjoy fair opportunities and live happily no matter where they live. I wonder if I'll ever get the chance to do that again.
It was very rewarding and heartening when I went to the United States on a killer schedule for four days and four nights and announced the Camp David Declaration between the United States, Korea, and Japan. When we opened the door for defense exports and Team Korea was selected as the preferred bidder for the Czech Republic's nuclear power plant construction project, I was jumping for joy.
I also remember moments of regret.
It was frustrating when bills that were essential for businesses and the people were put on the back burner, and when unconstitutional bills, bills that I had no choice but to veto, and bills that were against core national interests were passed unanimously in the National Assembly by the opposition party alone.
It was frustrating to see the Achilles' heel budgets for defense, public security, and civilian life cut.
Now, I'm pausing for a moment, but I believe that many people, especially our young people, are waking up to the situation in which our country finds itself. And are stepping up to take back our sovereignty and defend our country.
The purpose of the emergency martial law was to announce the national crisis and appeal to the sovereign power, which is the constitutional power, to step in, and I think this alone has fulfilled the purpose of the emergency martial law to a large extent. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our people, our youth, who understand my sincerity.
There are allegations that if I return to office, I will declare martial law again at a later date. This is absurd.
I have already made a public appeal in the form of martial law, and many of our people and youth have already come forward to face the situation and defend the country.
Is there any reason to declare martial law again? It will never happen.
Before the Court, I would like to briefly address only two issues. Rather than going into the details of the facts, I will speak simply in the lines of common sense.
First of all, the allegation that I called for the arrest or removal of a member of the National Assembly from the plenary session is absolutely absurd. Common sense says, what on earth would you do?
Even if you arrest and remove members of parliament to slow down or prevent the lifting of martial law, what are you going to do next when the whole country and the whole world is watching?
As the Speaker of Parliament said on the day of martial law, Parliament could hold a plenary session anywhere and vote to lift martial law.
In movies and novels, it's possible to do this, but in reality, you'd have to have a plan and a political program to take complete control of the country with the military. And a political program to take over the country with the military.
But has that ever happened in real life?
The tribunal evidence revealed where key commanders who would be in charge of martial law affairs were in the days leading up to the emergency martial law. They went on provincial vacations, couple's dinners, and executive dinners with ministerial approval, and only received work instructions from the Defense Minister shortly after martial law was declared.
There was no prepared operational plan or guidance, which led to confusion and sloppiness.
Why would the defense minister and commanders do this when they are experienced military professionals?
Because the declaration of martial law was a public appeal that borrowed the martial law format and was different from past martial law.
Why would our 500,000 troops, who have already experienced democracy for decades, act as private soldiers for a one-term president?
I declared martial law solely to ask the people, the sovereign people, to recognize that the country was in crisis because of the dictatorship of the National Assembly and to take it upon themselves to provide the checks and balances of oversight and criticism.
It was an appeal to the sovereign, the constitutional power, to step in directly in a crisis of the republic's cause.
The allegation that MPs were arrested or asked to be removed, when only 280 orderlies were planned for Parliament, makes no sense at all.
This is not a weekend when Parliament is empty, it's a weekday when Parliament is in session, and it makes no sense at all.
There are 300 members of Congress alone, and thousands more if you include congressional staff and aides.
If you watch the live TV coverage, there were already thousands of parliamentarians and civilians on the grounds and in the main building not long after martial law was declared.
In fact, it was not until an hour and a half after the declaration of martial law that the orderlies arrived, with 106 troops entering the National Assembly grounds and only 15 troops entering the main building, so how can it make sense to have such a small number of troops arrest and remove lawmakers?
Furthermore, the order to “enter the plenary chamber and remove the lawmakers because the quorum has not been reached” is contrary to common sense, because if the quorum has not been reached, the first thing to do is to stop them from entering, not to remove them.
The soldiers who entered the main building didn't even know where the plenary chamber was.
None of this makes sense.
Not a single person was dragged out, not a single person was arrested, and not a single incident of soldiers assaulting or harming civilians, even if they were assaulted by civilians.
To make these claims about an impossible event that has not and cannot happen is the equivalent of trying to pick up moonlight from a lake.
The massive opposition succeeded in impeaching the president by framing martial law, which was declared under the president's constitutional authority, as an illegal insurrection, and then the Constitutional Court removed insurrection as a ground for impeachment.
It was the first impeachment of its kind.
Whether or not it was an insurrection is not determined through long and complicated hearings, but rather by what actually happened and the outcome of the process, as shown in the precedents, and it must be readily apparent to anyone to be an insurrection.
The reason why the major opposition parties and the prosecution deleted the rebellion from the constitutional review is not to shorten the hearing time, but because there is no substance of the rebellion. Moreover, the 12.3 martial law was the fastest martial law in history, from the time it was declared to the time it was lifted. Therefore, the martial law command was not organized, the Yeha investigation headquarters was not organized, and the martial law was just ended. You cannot call a martial law that lasted only a few hours peacefully a rebellion.
Next, I would like to talk about the emergency cabinet meeting.
There is an argument that a cabinet meeting on the day of martial law cannot be considered a cabinet meeting.
But if it wasn't a cabinet meeting, why did cabinet members come to the President's office on the night of December 3rd?
There is also an argument that it was not a cabinet meeting, but a meeting, but was it a meeting?
A meeting doesn't even have a quorum, so why would they wait until a quorum was present?
At 8:30 p.m. that evening, the Cabinet members began to arrive one by one, and I explained the emergency martial law to them and handed out a proclamation of emergency martial law outlined by the Minister of Defense.
They were concerned that there could be economic and diplomatic difficulties, and I explained to them that as president, I had a different idea than the cabinet members who were in charge of the ministries, that the country was in an emergency and that emergency measures were necessary.
I also told them not to worry about the ministers' concerns, for example, the economy minister's concern about financial market turmoil and the foreign minister's concern about friendly country relations.
I told them not to worry because they were reminiscent of martial law in the past.
After the quorum was established, the cabinet meeting lasted five minutes, but we had already had enough discussion before then.
The next day at dawn, the cabinet meeting to lift martial law lasted only one minute. Even in the actual regular, state cabinet meeting, everyone has to wrap up their remarks, make remarks, and cover a lot of agenda items, so it takes about an hour, but the time to deliberate on individual items is extremely short.
Also, you can't have a cabinet meeting for emergency martial law like a regular cabinet meeting, because it's important to maintain security, and that way you can reduce chaos and minimize the number of troops to maintain order.
Former Minister of Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min testified at the last trial that he had attended more than 100 cabinet meetings, but that it was the first time that there was a substantial discussion or communication like in this cabinet meeting. The secretary and the head of the security office were invited to come to the presidential office to observe the cabinet meeting, and the head of the National Intelligence Service was also invited because it was a matter of national security.
Even on August 13, 1993, when former President Kim Young-sam announced the financial disclosure system in an emergency fiscal and economic order, the members of the Cabinet were not aware of the announcement until just before the meeting, and the minutes of the Cabinet meeting were written after the fact.
The circumstances of that time have already been explained in detail by the then Minister of Labor.
But no one said that there was no cabinet meeting on this, and the Constitutional Court at that time decided that the issuance of the emergency order was constitutional. On the other issues, I will turn to the arguments of the defense counsel.
Mr. President, Members of the Supreme Court, and members of the public, I have served my presidency with the mindset that if it has to be done someday and someone has to do it, I will do it now.
So, in the first half of my term, I boldly pursued the national reform agenda, focusing on the three major reforms of education, labor, and pensions, which previous governments were afraid to do for fear of losing votes. I took the first steps to reunify the reservation, which had been stalled for 30 years, and laid the groundwork for education reform, including the establishment of day schools and convergent higher education, and the bold transfer of powers to strengthen links with local industry. Labor reforms, including labor flexibility and labor protection to adapt to the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, were also initiated.
As for pension reform, which was a national challenge, the government conducted extensive mathematical analysis and in-depth public opinion polls for the first time in its history, and created a highly acceptable plan and submitted it to the National Assembly. We have been working according to this schedule because at the beginning of a presidential term, the priority is to fulfill the promises made to the people and voters, implement national issues, and promote social reforms that have a significant impact on people's lives.
At the beginning of any administration's term, the priority is to fulfill election promises and national tasks, so there is no time for political reform. However, the five-year terms of previous presidents have quickly passed, and the 87 system, which is not suitable for the changed times, is still in place. Politics is making people uncomfortable and hindering the country's development.
We need to lower the threshold of politics and administration so that the youth, who are the future leaders of the country, can participate in deciding the future of the country.
If I were to return to office, I would focus the second half of my term on pushing for constitutional amendments and political reforms to make the 87th Amendment work for us and leave the country in good hands for future generations.
I already had a plan from the beginning of my presidency that I would push for political reforms such as constitutional amendments and electoral reforms after the middle of my term. Constitutional amendments and political reforms cannot be done without the sacrifice and determination of the incumbent president, so I thought I would do it. I also pushed for and implemented the return of the Blue House to the people immediately after my election, something that many previous presidents failed to do when they were candidates.
I will do my best to improve the '87 system, not focusing on the remainder of my term, and considering constitutional reform and political reform as my final mission.
I will gather the will of the people and push for the constitutional reform as soon as possible, and I will devote myself to creating a constitution and political structure that is well suited to the changes in our society. I will also make every effort to achieve national unity during the constitutional reform and political reform process.
After all, national unity is achieved through the constitution and constitutional values, so I believe that if the constitutional reform and political reform are promoted correctly, the people who are divided and divided will be united in the process. In that case, there will be no reason for me to serve the remainder of my term under the current constitution, but rather, it will be a great honor for me.
Regarding national affairs and work, given the rapidly changing international situation and the global complex crisis, the president will focus on foreign relations and devolve much of the authority for domestic affairs to the prime minister.
Our economy is highly dependent on the outside world more than any other country, and it is bound to be greatly affected by the rapid changes in the international order and uncertainty in global economic security, especially since the Trump administration took office.
Depending on how we choose our national course now, a crisis can be an opportunity or an irreversible disaster.
With the experience of building the strongest U.S.-ROK alliance in history and leading trilateral cooperation, I will strive to safeguard our national interests in foreign relations.
Honorable members of the Constitutional Court, first of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to you for your faithfulness in the impeachment trial, which was held on a tight schedule.
This hearing was centered on the issues presented by the prosecution team that led the deletion of the civil war from the impeachment, and as a result, I did not have enough time to fully explain the reasons and inevitability of my declaration of emergency martial law on December 3. I have diligently submitted relevant materials in writing, so please consider the reasons for my agonizing decision as president.
I also trust that your wisdom and insight will be able to help me in areas that I cannot fully explain to you as a president who deals with a lot of classified information. Once again, I thank you for your hard work.
To the people of the Republic of Korea, I sincerely apologize for the confusion and inconvenience caused to you, my beloved countrymen, during the process of imposing martial law for the good of the country and its people.
There are also young people who are in a difficult situation because of what happened during my detention. I am so heartbroken and sorry that I put right before wrong.
When I ran for president, I made a decision to give my life for the country.
After the martial law and impeachment charges on December 3, I saw the people who came out to the streets to defend me in the freezing cold.
I have also heard people criticizing and rebuking me.
They have different arguments, but I think they all love Korea.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the people who have believed in me and supported me despite my shortcomings.
I will also take the reprimands of those who criticize me deeply to heart.
I will do everything I can to make this a stepping stone to a new Korea.
Thank you.
