A Seoul court sentenced former South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol to 30 years in prison on June 12, 2026, after finding him guilty of benefiting the enemy and abusing power through a covert drone operation over North Korea. The Seoul Central District Court concluded that the flights were designed to provoke Pyongyang and support a plan to justify martial law.
The case concerned multiple drone missions over the North Korean capital beginning in October 2024. The aircraft distributed leaflets critical of North Korea. Former defence minister Kim Yong-hyun presented the activity as a response to North Korea’s trash-balloon campaign, but judges found that Yoon and senior military officials intended to induce a reaction and raise inter-Korean tensions rather than pursue a legitimate security objective.
The court said the defendants sought to create the emergency that would then be used to support extraordinary presidential powers. It found that the operation consumed military resources, exposed South Korean capabilities and weakened readiness for a genuine crisis. Judges also said the missions created risks of casualties and property damage if they triggered an armed clash.
Kim Yong-hyun received the same 30-year sentence. Former Defence Counterintelligence Commander Yeo In-hyung was sentenced to 15 years after being convicted over the operation. Former Drone Operations Command chief Kim Yong-dae received a three-year term suspended for five years. The court said Kim Yong-dae took part in concealing the mission but appeared not to know it was intended to help establish conditions for martial law. His cooperation, acceptance of much of the factual account and lack of a prior criminal record were treated as mitigating factors.
Judges found that Yoon, Kim Yong-hyun and Yeo improperly required military personnel to perform tasks outside the armed forces’ constitutional mission. Soldiers were not obliged to follow such orders, the court said. It characterised the use of defence resources for political purposes as a betrayal of public trust.
The ruling was the first in South Korean constitutional history against a former president for benefiting the enemy, an offence classified as a crime against the state. It also represented the first conviction of a former president for an external-security crime, according to the supplied report.
Yoon’s lawyers rejected the judgment as politically motivated and argued that the flights were a legitimate response to North Korean actions. That defence did not persuade the trial court. The decision established criminal responsibility at this stage of the proceedings, while the supplied evidence did not state whether Yoon would appeal. The sentence addressed the drone operation specifically and placed the misuse of military command, rather than the success or failure of any provocation, at the centre of the court’s reasoning.
