Special counsel seeks 30-year term for ex-president over NK drone incursion

The special counsel team requested prison terms for four defendants at their appeals trial before the Seoul High Court. The requests concern allegations that military authority was used to provoke North Korea and create a pretext for martial law. The requested terms show prosecutors view the alleged conduct as exceptionally serious.

Prosecutors sought 30 years for former President Yoon Suk Yeol and former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun. They requested 20 years for former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyung. They sought five years for former Drone Operations Command chief Kim Yong-dae. All four faced charges of benefiting the enemy and abuse of power.

These are prosecution requests, not final appeals-court sentences. The lower court had already sentenced Yoon and Kim Yong-hyun to 30 years each. Yeo received 15 years, while Kim Yong-dae received a suspended three-year term. The appeals court’s decision would determine whether those outcomes change.

“Benefiting the enemy” is the prosecution’s description of conduct that allegedly aided North Korea, South Korea’s military opponent, rather than protecting South Korea. In this case, prosecutors connect the charge to an alleged plan to provoke Pyongyang. The article does not provide the charge’s full legal definition.

The alleged mechanism was sending military drones toward Pyongyang in October 2024. Prosecutors say the operation could provoke a North Korean military response. They argue that such a response might then provide a pretext for Yoon’s declaration of martial law. The charge therefore focuses on the alleged effect of the defendants’ actions on North Korea’s position.

The defendants were also charged with abuse of power. The special counsel team said their conduct was more serious than insurrection. These are allegations presented in the appeals trial, not a final finding by that court. The lower court had convicted and sentenced the defendants before the appeal.

The case involves four former officials. They are former President Yoon Suk Yeol, former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyung, and former Drone Operations Command chief Kim Yong-dae. Prosecutors requested different terms based on their alleged roles in the operation.

The special counsel team sought 30 years for Yoon and 30 years for Kim Yong-hyun. It requested 20 years for Yeo In-hyung and five years for Kim Yong-dae. The charges were benefiting the enemy and abuse of power. Prosecutors allege the group used military authority to provoke North Korea.

The lower court’s sentences were not identical to these requests in every case. Yoon and Kim Yong-hyun each received 30 years. Yeo received 15 years, while Kim Yong-dae received a suspended three-year term. The appeals trial could review those lower-court outcomes.

Sending military drones into or toward Pyongyang could be seen as provocative because it involved North Korea’s capital and used military assets. Such an operation could be interpreted as hostile surveillance, an attack-related action, or a deliberate challenge. The article specifically describes the alleged purpose as provoking a military clash.

According to prosecutors, the Drone Operations Command sent drones to Pyongyang in October 2024 on Yoon’s orders. The alleged mechanism was escalation: the flights could prompt North Korea to respond militarily. That response could then be presented as evidence of an emergency requiring extraordinary government measures.

The prosecution’s claim is not that a clash definitely occurred. Rather, the team alleges the defendants intended to create conditions in which one could happen. It says the defendants abused military command authority and operational control for that purpose. The appeals court is considering these allegations.

Martial law is an extraordinary measure that can expand military authority during a claimed crisis. In this case, prosecutors allege that Yoon’s government sought a North Korean provocation to make such a declaration appear necessary. The article describes the possible response as a pretext, not as an established justification.

The alleged sequence was deliberate. Drones were sent to Pyongyang in October 2024. A resulting North Korean military reaction could then be portrayed as an armed clash or national-security emergency. Prosecutors say that chain of events could have supported Yoon’s declaration of martial law in December 2024.

The article does not specify which particular powers the government would have exercised under martial law. It does state that prosecutors believe military command authority and operational control were abused to create the pretext. The allegation makes the supposed crisis politically important: it could have turned a provoked confrontation into grounds for extraordinary rule.

The four defendants occupied different levels of South Korea’s military chain of command. Yoon was the president. Kim Yong-hyun was the defense minister. Yeo In-hyung commanded the Defense Counterintelligence Command. Kim Yong-dae led the Drone Operations Command. These roles identify political leadership, defense administration, counterintelligence, and drone operations.

The article says Yoon ordered the Drone Operations Command to send drones to Pyongyang. It also says the defendants abused military command authority and operational control. That allegation links the president’s order to the defense minister and commanders who held authority over military organizations and operations.

The source does not provide a detailed legal chart of each official’s authority or describe every communication between them. It does establish the alleged chain: a presidential order, defense leadership, and command-level involvement in the drone operation. Prosecutors say that structure was used to provoke North Korea and support a martial-law pretext.

Civilian control means elected civilian authorities direct the military under law, while military institutions do not manufacture political crises for leaders. It matters because armed forces possess coercive power. Constitutional government depends on that power being used for public security and lawful purposes, not to strengthen one leader’s position.

In this case, prosecutors allege that Yoon and senior officials used military authority to provoke North Korea. The alleged drone flights to Pyongyang could have triggered an armed response. Prosecutors say that response might then have supplied a pretext for declaring martial law. That would connect military operations directly to a domestic political objective.

The special counsel team called the alleged crimes more serious than insurrection. The article does not give the court’s final constitutional analysis. It does show why prosecutors view the allegations as severe: they say command authority and operational control were used to create a crisis, rather than simply respond to one.