At a Glance

In January 2025, following news that an arrest warrant had been issued for former President Yoon Suk Yeol, a group of his supporters forcibly entered the Seoul Western District Court and caused violent disturbances.

The incident led to mass criminal prosecutions for offenses including aggravated trespass into a public building.


Who Was on Trial

59 people involved in the riot were sentenced at first instance in August 2025.

37 defendants appealed their prison sentences.

During the appeal process, one person withdrew, leaving 36 appellants.


Appeal Court Decision (Dec 24, 2025)

The Seoul High Court (Criminal Division 8) largely upheld the original rulings.

Outcomes for the 36 defendants:

16 defendants: Appeals dismissed, original sentences fully upheld.

20 defendants: Sentences slightly reduced.

18 still received prison terms, shortened by 2 to 4 months.

2 defendants had their sentences converted to suspended prison terms.



Overall takeaway: Most defendants still face incarceration.


Sentencing Range

First-instance sentences generally ranged from 1 to 5 years in prison.

A minority initially received suspended sentences.


Court’s Reasoning

The court rejected claims that the defendants acted to “protect democracy or the rule of law.”

Judges emphasized that:

The riot undermined lawful state authority, rather than defending it.

Court staff and investigators trapped inside the building experienced serious fear for their lives.


The court stressed that violence against judicial institutions cannot be justified, regardless of political motivation.


Notable Exception

Jung Yoon-seok, a documentary filmmaker who entered the court to film the chaos:

His ₩2 million fine from the first trial was upheld.

The court ruled that, from the perspective of court employees, he was indistinguishable from other intruders, and therefore still guilty of unlawful entry.



Why This Case Matters

Reinforces the judiciary’s stance that political belief does not excuse violence.

Sends a clear signal that attacks on courts and judicial processes will be punished firmly, even on appeal.

Highlights the limits of “public interest” or “documentation” defenses during civil unrest.


In short: the appeals court trimmed a few months here and there, but the core message stayed ironclad. Storming a court is not protest. It is a crime.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/214444