A Seoul Central District Court panel sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to 5 years in prison for obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and related charges.


Court / case details:

Seoul Central District Court, Criminal Division 35 (Presiding Judge: Baek Dae-hyeon)

Case number: 2025GoHap1010

Date of ruling: January 16, 2026 (reported January 17).


What the court found Yoon guilty of (key findings):

Special obstruction of official duties (arrest warrant execution):

The court held that Yoon mobilized Presidential Security Service personnel in a way that blocked CIO officers from executing the arrest warrant, describing this as effectively “privatizing” state coercive power and undermining rule of law.


Abuse of authority / interference with rights:

Related to the way state power was used to impede lawful procedures and the exercise of others’ official functions.


Cover-up style conduct tied to “secure phone” records:

The court accepted that Yoon directed steps to prevent investigative agencies from accessing call-record information tied to secure communication devices used by senior commanders (as described in the article you pasted).



Emergency martial law (12·3) related findings (partly upheld):

The court treated the arrest-obstruction conduct as part of the broader factual package surrounding the 12·3 emergency martial law controversy, and this ruling is described as the first trial-level outcome among the related proceedings.


Document falsification / destruction (partly upheld):

The court also found guilt on allegations that, after martial law was lifted, officials created and then disposed of a false proclamation document to make it appear martial law was executed through proper countersignature procedures.

This was framed as false official document creation and violations relating to presidential records / damage to official documents (per your pasted text).


What the court did not convict on (notable acquittals / partial acquittals):

Some counts were acquitted, including:

Allegations about disseminating overseas press guidance claiming “no intent to destroy constitutional order” (as described in your pasted text).

Parts of the “cabinet meeting rights infringement” theory were not fully accepted (the court narrowed which ministers, if any, were legally harmed).


Why this matters:

This is a high-stakes ruling about separation of powers and enforcement credibility: courts are signaling that blocking warrant execution using a security apparatus crosses a legal red line, even for the former head of state.

Expect the legal battle to move into the appellate phase, where the record on intent, chain-of-command, and proportionality will be fought over again.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/215056