On the 25th, President Yoon Suk-yeol delivered his final statement for his impeachment trial for 1 hour and 8 minutes in the grand courtroom of the Constitutional Court located in Jongno-gu, Seoul. This marks the first time in our constitutional history that a sitting president personally made a final statement during an impeachment trial.
Below is the full text of President Yoon's final statement.
Esteemed justices of the Constitutional Court, and dear citizens who have followed this trial with keen interest, it has been 84 days since I declared a state of emergency on December 3 of last year.
These have been the hardest days of my life, but they have also been a time of gratitude and reflection. Looking back on myself, I realized that I have received overwhelming love from our people. While I felt grateful, I was also distressed and heartbroken by the reality that I have not been able to perform the duties entrusted to me during the time given by the citizens.
I would first like to express my apologies and gratitude to the citizens. When I declared the state of emergency and lifted it a few hours later, many people did not understand. There are likely still some who are confused. The term 'emergency' may evoke negative memories from the past. The giant opposition party and insurrection conspirators are exploiting this trauma to incite the people.
However, the December 3 state of emergency is completely different from past emergencies. It is not an emergency that represses the citizens by force, but a public appeal disguised as an emergency. The declaration of the December 3 state of emergency is a declaration that our country is in a national crisis, urging the sovereign citizens to face the situation and to join in overcoming it.
Above all, I want to clarify that this choice was never for myself, Yoon Suk-yeol. I was already at the pinnacle of power as president. The easiest and most comfortable path for a president is to avoid undertaking hard and risky tasks, to compromise appropriately with various social forces, and to spend the five-year term in a cozy manner by saying what everyone wants to hear.
If I were to give up the desire to work, there would be no intense struggle to engage in, and no difficult choices to make. If I passed five years in such a manner, I could savor the honors of a retired president and enjoy a comfortable old age. If I only considered my own life, there would be no reason at all to choose a state of emergency that could face fierce attacks from political opposing forces.
I anticipated that enormous difficulties would come upon me when I decided to declare a state of emergency. The giant opposition party claims that I declared a state of emergency in order to extend my rule and engage in dictatorship. This is merely a frame for a conspiracy to press charges of insurrection. If that were true, would I have only deployed a mere 280 service members who were not fully mobilized? Would I have proclaimed a state of emergency on a weekday instead of a weekend and then moved the troops after the declaration?
According to the evidence presented during the trial, only 106 troops entered the National Assembly before the resolution demanding the lifting of the emergency, and just 15 made it into the main building. The reason those 15 broke a window to enter was that their duty station was in the main building, but they found the entrance blocked by civilians and sought refuge through an unlit window to avoid confrontation. Additionally, all troops were withdrawn immediately after the resolution demanding the termination was reached. Given the small number of troops deployed, we requested police assistance for external security and maintaining order. While there were injured soldiers, not a single civilian was harmed.
From the beginning, I made it clear to the Minister of National Defense that the purpose of this state of emergency was "to appeal to the people." I also indicated that the resolution demanding the state of emergency be lifted would follow quickly, so the emergency situation would not last long. However, I could not inform military commanders of these details in advance. Therefore, I deployed the minimum number of troops without full mobilization, clearly limiting the military's mission to security and order maintenance.
If a large number of troops were deployed in a state of armament, no matter how careful and restrained we tried to be, clashes with crowds would be likely. This was fundamentally blocked to prevent such incidents, and indeed, the actual results did not deviate from the expectations. This is why I specifically instructed the Minister of National Defense to deploy a small force that was unarmed and experienced.
Nevertheless, the giant opposition party is claiming this to be insurrection. With less than two hours of troop deployment, can there be such a thing as a two-hour insurrection? Have you ever seen a scenario where it's declared on broadcasts to the entire world and the citizens and when the National Assembly says to stop, the troops are withdrawn immediately? The claims by the giant opposition party that the president attempted to seize control of the National Assembly and instigate insurrection is merely a strategic fabrication to topple the president.
Seeing public officials who carried out emergency operations and maintained order under the president's legal authority suffering from this insurrection framing breaks my heart. Did they act to establish long-term dictatorship for the president? They are well aware that in the reality of South Korea, long-term dictatorship cannot even be imagined, and they have already reached the highest positions in their fields, having no further desires. They were merely performing their duties in accordance with the exercise of the president's legal authority.
Honorable justices of the Constitutional Court, and citizens, as I watch over the governance of the nation with a wealth of information from the position of president, I see many issues that are not visible to others and problems that are not immediately apparent. Things that initially seem fine may lead to major crises in the near future, which are within the president's sight. The reality of our country is heading toward a cliff, much like a frog not realizing it is boiling in a pot.
Some may think, when has there not been a crisis? However, while previous crises were issues of sudden concern, the current situation represents a crisis of national survival and a systemic crisis which is on an entirely different level.
U.S. President Donald Trump declared a national emergency and deployed troops on his first day in office. Assessing whether or not the U.S. is in a national emergency may vary. However, it seems clear that this was a presidential decision to protect the American people against the crises of illegal immigrants, drug cartels, and energy shortages.
So, what about the reality in our country? Can we assert categorically that there is no national emergency? External forces infringing on our sovereignty, such as North Korea, are linking up with anti-state forces within our society, seriously threatening our national security and continuity. They are pushing our society into conflict and chaos through fake news, public opinion manipulation, and propaganda.
Just looking at the case of the Democratic Federation of Trade Unions spy group caught last year, we can easily confirm the presence of anti-state forces. They met with North Korean operatives to receive direct orders and passed military facility information to North Korea. They planned total strikes following orders from North Korea and protested against U.S. President Biden's visit and the Korea-U.S. joint military exercises, among other activities.
Moreover, evidence of intervening in the elections based on orders from North Korea has also been uncovered. Right after the last presidential election, they received specific instructions to "ignite the spark for the president's impeachment." In fact, on March 26, 2022, the 'preemptive impeachment of Yoon Suk-yeol' rally was held, and by early December 2024, there were an astonishing 178 rallies calling for the president's resignation and impeachment. These rallies included participation from unions under the Democratic Federation of Trade Unions and media labor unions, and members of the giant opposition party took the podium as well. Was this not carried out according to orders from North Korea?
"In today's world, where are the spies?" some may say. However, spies have not vanished; rather, they have evolved into disruptive activities undermining South Korea's free democracy. Yet the defenses of our society against such spy activities have weakened and are riddled with holes.
Due to the legislative harshness of the previous Democratic Party administration, the National Intelligence Service's rights in counter-espionage investigations have been stripped since January 2024. Cases involving spies require institutions with expertise to conduct meticulous and prolonged investigations. However, without proper preparation, the counter-espionage authority has been handed over to the police, which lacks expertise and experience. This has created an environment where spies can operate freely. Furthermore, even if they are captured with great difficulty, there are instances of long delays in trials. Currently, there are four ongoing espionage cases, including those of the Democratic Federation of Trade Unions spy group, Changwon spy group, Cheongju spy group, and Jeju spy group.
However, the Cheongju spy group case took over 29 months for the first trial judgment, while the Democratic Federation of Trade Unions spy group case took 1 year and 6 months for the first trial judgment. They were released after their detention period expired and walked freely until they were ultimately detained following the first trial judgment. The Changwon spy group case has been stalled for nearly 2 years, and the Jeju spy group case has faced delays for 1 year and 10 months. They are all currently in a released state.
Is it really acceptable to be unable to catch spies, and even if caught, to be incapable of appropriately punishing them? Nevertheless, the giant opposition party is busy defending the Democratic Federation of Trade Unions and is calling for the abolition of the National Security Law following the removal of counter-espionage rights from the National Intelligence Service. They have even completely slashed the special activity expenses used for police counter-espionage to zero. In short, they are saying not to catch spies.
Last year, Chinese individuals were caught multiple times while attempting to fly drones over our military bases, national intelligence agencies, international airports, and domestic U.S. military facilities. In order to punish them for espionage, we need to amend the law, but the giant opposition party is vehemently opposing this.
Industrial spies leaking core national technologies are also rapidly increasing. Losses from technology leaks in semiconductors, displays, and other areas amount to tens of trillions of won, with two-thirds of this leakage going to China. While China enforces a stringent "anti-espionage law" that allows them to detain our citizens for a simple mistake, the giant opposition party is obstructing even the legal amendments needed to combat industrial spies.
Furthermore, the giant opposition party is promoting a bill as party policy that requires National Assembly approval for exporting military supplies. This would require submitting defense classified materials to the National Assembly, and if the giant opposition party opposes, exports of military supplies would become impossible. Who can guarantee that the classified materials submitted to the National Assembly will be properly kept confidential and will not fall into hostile hands? If such defense secrets are leaked, would the opposing countries import our defense products? This is tantamount to saying not to export military supplies to countries like North Korea, China, and Russia that do not wish to see a free world.
The giant opposition party is also at the forefront of weakening our national defense capabilities and rendering the military ineffective. North Korea is sending troops to Ukraine and attempting military closeness with Russia, which poses a serious threat to our security. Yet, when I tried to send an observation group to monitor this, the giant opposition party vehemently obstructed it under the threat of impeaching then-Minister of National Defense Shinwon.
Moreover, the giant opposition party claims that our military's legitimate security activities, such as sending an observation group to Ukraine or reviewing responses to North Korean loudspeakers and balloon propaganda, constitute foreign currency crimes. They criticize the president, who is trying to protect the safety of the state and the people, as a "war-monger" and disparage the Korea-U.S.-Japan joint drills aimed at countering the North Korean nuclear threat as "extreme pro-Japanese behavior." It's even been specifically stated in the first impeachment motion that the president should be impeached for being hostile toward North Korea, China, and Russia. The omnipotent giant opposition party, with its vast number of seats, is aligned with North Korea, China, and Russia rather than standing with our country and our citizens. If this is not a situation of national crisis, then what is?
That's not all. The giant opposition party is trying to weaken our military by cutting core defense budgets. They argue that they have only cut a mere 0.65% of the total budget. However, it is crucial to consider exactly where this 0.65% lies. It's like saying one has removed only two eyeballs while pulling out both of a person's eyes.
The defense budget cut by the giant opposition party is akin to gouging out the eyes of our military. They have significantly reduced the budget for reconnaissance assets, which are critical for striking North Korea's nuclear and missile bases as part of the kill chain. The budget for the key reconnaissance projects has been cut by 485.2 billion won compared to 2024, and the budget for improving the performance of the tactical data link system by a staggering 78%. The establishment of the Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD) system, which intercepts missiles aimed at our citizens, is on the brink of development halt due to budget cuts. A budget of 11.959 billion won was earmarked for long-range guided missile projects, but 96% of it was cut down to just 500 million won. The budget for precision-guided artillery research and development has also been slashed by 84%.
No matter how strong a fist may be, if you cannot see ahead, you cannot fight; similarly, without reconnaissance assets, even the best weapons are useless. Moreover, North Korea's drone attacks have emerged as a severe threat recently, and 9.954 billion won out of 10 billion won allocated for drone defense was cut, effectively halting the project altogether. I am curious as to who directed such precise cuts to these critical budgets.
Furthermore, the previous Democratic administration drastically reduced the personnel of the Military Counter-Intelligence Command by around half, which severely impacted the information and counter-intelligence activities related to the military and defense industry. Additionally, individuals connected to previous espionage cases were appointed as key officials in the National Intelligence Service, leaving the organization in a state where it's unclear whether it functions as a counter-intelligence agency or an information leak agency. The individuals who led these actions during the previous administration are still key figures within the giant opposition party, shaking the foundations of national security.
In my government, I have endeavored to allow the National Intelligence Service to evolve into a core organization for national security and worked to bolster the capabilities of the Military Counter-Intelligence Command, but the roots of the problem still have not been fully uprooted. While it is easier to destroy than to create, particularly because rebuilding takes a lot of time. Although this situation may outwardly appear fine, I believe that it is, in fact, a national crisis equivalent to a wartime situation. I think the giant opposition party should demonstrate a responsible stance and trust toward the nation as a political party before blaming the president for their perceptions of the opposition.
As long as I uphold the principles of constitutional democracy, national security, and safeguarding core national interests, I am willing to engage in dialogue and compromises with any political force. Are there any divisions, left or right, regarding issues that concern the nation and people? However, communism, one-party dictatorship, and totalitarianism based on materialism must be blocked from permeating South Korea through various deceptions. Compromising and bargaining with such forces is unacceptable.
We can trade with countries whose values we do not share and seek international cooperation and mutual benefits. However, we must block attempts to influence our political system. This is as important as national defense and security; it is the path to protecting constitutional democracy. As a political party in a free democracy, engaging with such forces and supporting them must absolutely not occur.
Honorable justices of the Constitutional Court, and citizens, the giant opposition party has been seeking the impeachment of the president even before I took office, and has continued paralyzing the government with routine impeachments, legislative overreach, and budgetary excesses. The giant opposition party argues that even this overreach is an exercise of the legitimate authority of the National Assembly. However, the constitutional authority of the National Assembly is granted to be used for the people. If they abuse that authority for their political purposes, it is nothing short of undermining the constitutional order.
Furthermore, the giant opposition party has been continuously instigating insurrection by claiming that I attempted to paralyze the powers of the National Assembly with the declaration of a state of emergency. Yet, the giant opposition party has consistently and stubbornly paralyzed the powers of the government since my inauguration as president. They have swung the National Assembly's authority as if their only goal was to paralyze the government.
In the face of a two and a half hour state of emergency that did not hinder the entrance of National Assembly members and staff or impede any National Assembly votes, which party has truly impeded the other's powers?
The giant opposition party has impeached not only cabinet members, but also the chair of the Korea Communications Commission, the Chief Prosecutor, and directors. The question of whether or not there was a legitimate reason for impeachment was of no importance. They even impeached a minister for simply giving them a stern look. They initiated impeachment proceedings, put people out of duty, and, incredibly, altered the grounds for impeachment during the Constitutional Court trial.
Recently, didn’t the justices themselves conduct the impeachment trial regarding the Central District Prosecutor's Office and other prosecutors? They claimed that someone had lied at a press conference, despite the fact that that person wasn't even present there; they alleged someone had given false testimony at a National Assembly inspection despite that person not attending the audit. The fundamental grounds for impeachment were inaccurate, but they initiated an impeachment process nonetheless. Is this really a normal occurrence?
The massive cut of public officials by the giant opposition party has overtaken the paralysis of government functions and is leading to collapse of the constitutional order. When the Itaewon tragedy occurred, the giant opposition party continually called for an investigation into the facts, using the tragedy for political conflict. Ultimately, they impeached the Minister of Public Administration and Security.
The directive sent by North Korea to the Democratic Federation of Trade Unions spy group included the following: 'With this major disaster, focus on generating a societal movement similar to the Sewol ferry tragedy investigation, and maximize the anger of all sectors.' The giant opposition party has been doing essentially the same thing as the spy group that received orders from North Korea. This is truly a form of "instigative impeachment" that exacerbates societal conflict and chaos.
The giant opposition party has impeached not just their party representatives, but also prosecutors investigating them, and even the Chief Prosecutor of the Central District Prosecutors' Office. Impeaching prosecutors serves as an obstruction to investigations, and it also instills fear among judges observing the impeachment. This is a "bulletproof impeachment" to obstruct investigations against their party leader and pressure the judges who will judge the criminal acts of their party leader.
Ultimately, the giant opposition party has even impeached the heads of auditing institutions that were investigating past government acts of treason. They included the 'deliberate delays in the formal deployment of THAAD' investigation in the impeachment motion against the Audit Office's head. This incident involved four prominent officials from the previous Democratic government who provided national security information, including operational names, timelines, and details of the THAAD deployment, to a military attaché at the Chinese embassy in South Korea. The Audit Office discovered and requested a prosecution for this incident, yet this was included as grounds for impeachment. In fact, this is an 'impeachment of treason' to cover up their espionage actions. Impeaching the head of the constitutional institution of the Audit Office represents a severe act of constitutional destruction, and I believe that their endeavor to cover up their treasonous actions only demonstrates that we are in a critical crisis that demolishes free democracy.
On the other hand, government departments are using and executing monumental budgets funded by taxpayers. They also supervise numerous affiliated agencies. If these department heads are impeached, leading to either a paralysis or severe disruption of their departmental functions, then the opportunity costs and financial repercussions to the nation and citizens would be truly immense.
While the giant opposition party indiscriminately initiates impeachment proceedings against public officials and utilizes taxpayer funds for legal costs, the wrongfully impeached public officials must source their legal counsel using their personal funds while their duties are suspended. As a result, government officials face extreme intimidation from the giant opposition party's abuses. This way, the giant opposition party is dismantling South Korea through 'instigative impeachments,' 'bulletproof impeachments,' and 'impeachments of treason.'
Among elections in our country, the presidential elections last the longest and garner the most national interest. The democratic legitimacy of a directly elected president weighs more than that of other elected positions. In a nutshell, the democratization movement in our country can be said to have revolved around securing direct presidential elections.
However, as soon as the presidential election concluded, the giant opposition party teamed up with supportive factions to launch a preemptive impeachment movement against the president-elect, who had not yet even taken office, and has kept the momentum of collective impeachment efforts aimed solely at bringing the president down for the last two and a half years. This is not an exercise of justified checks and balances as mandated by the constitution, but rather an unceasing effort to topple the symbol of democratic legitimacy—the directly elected president. If this isn’t a violation of the constitution, then what can truly be called a constitutional infringement?
Moreover, the persistent violations of the constitution by the giant opposition party stem from an understanding that diverges significantly from the spirit of free democratic constitutionalism in terms of both national identity and foreign relations. Therefore, the collective impeachment moves aimed at dislodging a directly elected president are, in every aspect, damaging the order of free democracy.
People often refer to presidential systems with concentrated power as "imperial presidencies." However, what exists now in our country is not an imperial president but rather an imperial giant opposition party era. The rampage of the imperial giant opposition party is bringing about a crisis in the existence of South Korea. Isn’t it clear from the events that occurred following the declaration of emergency? If I were truly an imperial president, could the Financial Supervisory Service, police, and prosecution all compete to investigate me, and could the Independent Counsel (CIO), which does not even have the right to investigate insurrection, engage in warrant shopping and falsifying official documents in an attempt to arrest me?
Only 570 troops were deployed for the state of emergency, yet over 3,000 to 4,000 police forces were mobilized unlawfully to arrest just one president at the presidential residence. Between the president and the giant opposition party, who wields imperial power and undermines the constitutional order?
The reason I decided to declare a state of emergency was due to the desperate need to address the critical situation facing this nation. I wanted to inform the sovereign people about the anti-national atrocities of the giant opposition party and appeal for them to approach this directly with keen supervision and criticism. To prevent national paralysis and the collapse of free democratic constitutional order, I declared the state of emergency with a sense of urgency.
The declaration of the December 3 state of emergency was a proclamation that the nation is in a crisis and emergency situation. It is not intended to suppress the people or limit their fundamental rights, but rather a heartfelt plea for the sovereign people to directly participate in overcoming the state of emergency.
However, the giant opposition party has been gearing up for impeachment from the very day I lifted the emergency state at the request of the National Assembly. But states of emergency are not crimes; they are legitimate exercises of the president's authority to overcome national crises. I went through an emergency cabinet meeting before declaring the state of emergency on-air, deployed the minimum number of troops to maintain order in the National Assembly, and as soon as the Assembly called for its termination, I withdrew those troops and gathered the cabinet meeting to lift the emergency.
As you are all aware, in 2023, national institutions, including the Central Election Commission (CEC), were substantially hacked by North Korea. Although the CEC was notified by the National Intelligence Service about this issue, unlike other state agencies, it failed to respond adequately. Some results from a small inspection revealed serious security problems, which led to the deployment of a minimal troop presence for security. The security of the CEC's digital system, which is directly tied to the fairness of elections, is crucial for safeguarding our free democratic system and public assets. Moreover, the numerous instances of fake ballots revealed during the election lawsuits, along with statistically and scientifically implausible outcomes, have consistently raised the need for transparent inspections of the CEC's digital systems.
I cannot grasp which parts of these measures are deemed tantamount to insurrection or crime. If the state of emergency itself is illegal, then why does the emergency law exist, and how is the Joint Chiefs of Staff still in place?
Honorable justices of the Constitutional Court, and citizens, I declared my political participation for the first time on June 29, 2021. I knew well that the position of president is not a path of glory but rather one of hardship. Some who have closely observed the presidential office have even cautioned me that being president is a path paved with curses. However, in a situation where constitutional democracy is crumbling, I began my journey into politics because I wanted to protect the nation.
At that time, I made a promise to the people. I promised to create a country where the youth who will bear the future, those who have sacrificed for the nation, individuals who have dedicated their lives to industrialization, those who have devoted themselves to democratization yet live quietly, and law-abiding citizens do not feel anger. I vowed to ensure that all citizens, regardless of where they live in the country, have the opportunity to live happily and that I would work to achieve true national unity.
Since that day, I have never forgotten this promise. After being elected as president, I have ceaselessly endeavored to keep this promise.
There has not been a single easy task. The challenges stemming from the global complex crisis have persisted. The previous Democratic Party administration's flawed policies on income-led growth and real estate have continued to hinder us in resolving economic and livelihood issues. However, I believed that every problem can be solved through effort, and through collaboration with our corporations and citizens, we managed to tackle issues one by one.
There have been many rewarding and gratifying moments, yet several shortcomings and regrets as well. Most notably, pushing for improvements in the treatment of uniformed public officials who protect national security and citizens has been fulfilling. While the previous Democratic government was solely preoccupied with anti-Japan agitation, under our administration, the per capita GDP has surpassed that of Japan, and the difference in export figures between our economy and Japan, which has more than two and a half times our population, has now narrowed to just a few billion dollars. It has decreased to one-hundredth compared to 20 years ago and merely dozens of times since the previous administration.
Additionally, I often recall the nationwide town hall meetings held last year, where I conducted more than thirty forums. There, I listened to the struggles of the citizens directly and resolved many issues on-site, sharing in their laughter and tears. Traveling from the metropolitan area to Yeongnam, Honam, Chungcheong, Gangwon, and Jeju, I wanted to ensure that our citizens could enjoy fair opportunities and happiness no matter where they reside, working toward genuine national unity. I feel a deep regret at the thought of whether I will have another opportunity to work in that manner.
I felt immense pride when I was able to declare the Korea-U.S.-Japan Camp David Initiative during a grueling 4-day trip to the U.S. I was overjoyed when we successfully initiated defense exports, and Team Korea was selected as the preferred negotiator for the Czech Republic's nuclear power plant construction.
There are also moments of disappointment. Important laws that businesses and citizens deeply need were indefinitely postponed, while unconstitutional laws against core national interests swiftly passed the National Assembly solely with the support of the opposition party. When essential Achilles heel budgets for defense, security, and citizen welfare were slashed, I felt utterly despondent.
Though I am temporarily halted at this moment, many citizens, particularly our youth, are confronting the reality facing South Korea and stepping up to reclaim sovereignty and protect the nation. The purpose of the state of emergency was to inform citizens of the national crisis and appeal for them to take direct action, which I feel has been largely accomplished. I deeply appreciate the citizens and youth who understand my sincerity.
There are claims that if I return to duty, I will declare an emergency again. This is absurd. Many citizens and young people have already recognized the situation, acting in response to the appeal disguised as an emergency. Why would I declare another emergency? That will never happen.
Honorable justices, among the issues discussed in the courtroom, I would like to briefly touch upon two points. Instead of detailing the intricate facts, I will speak simply from the standpoint of common sense. First, there is the claim that I ordered the arrest of National Assembly members or instructed military personnel to pull them out of the assembly hall. This is an utterly ridiculous assertion. Common sense dictates, what would be accomplished by doing that? Even if I were to arrest and pull out the members, with the entire country and world watching, what would follow?
As stated by the Speaker of the National Assembly on the day of the emergency, the National Assembly can convene a session anywhere to vote on lifting the emergency. While this occurs in movies or novels, in reality, executing such a plan would require a complete military takeover of the country along with a political program. But did things actually happen that way? The key commanders responsible for emergency operations were either on leave with ministerial approvals or engaged in dinners with their spouses, and they received instructions from the Minister of National Defense only shortly after the emergency was declared. Because there were no prepared operational plans or instructions, confusion and negligence occurred. Why, being seasoned military leaders, did the Minister of National Defense and the commanders behave this way?
The declaration of the December 3 state of emergency was a public appeal disguised as an emergency and differs fundamentally from past declarations. Can it be expected that our military of 500,000, having experienced democracy for decades, would serve as personal troops for a five-year term president?
I declared the state of emergency solely so that the sovereign citizens would recognize that the country is in peril due to the National Assembly's disastrous dictatorship and urged them to intervene directly with monitoring and criticism. It was a plea for the constitutional sovereigns to step forward to address the crisis of the republic's representative system. The claim that I ordered the arrest or removal of members contrasts starkly with the fact that I only planned for 280 troops to maintain order, which makes no sense whatsoever given that this wasn’t a weekend when the assembly was empty but a weekday during the session. There are over 300 members of the National Assembly, and counting the staff and aides, the number exceeds thousands.
Even during the live broadcast, it was clear that not a single assembly member was pulled out or arrested; while soldiers were sometimes confronted by civilians, there were no incidents of civilians being harmed or attacked by the military. Such claims about events that never occurred and were impossible to have occurred are as absurd as trying to fish the moonlight reflected on water.
The giant opposition party has transformed the state of emergency, proclaimed under the president's constitutional authority, into an illegal insurrection, successfully moving toward impeachment. Shockingly, they deleted insurrection from the grounds of impeachment during the trial before the Constitutional Court. This is nothing less than unprecedented deceit in the impeachment process. Whether something is an insurrection or not cannot be determined through lengthy emotional measures; rather, it must be determined by looking at actual events and outcomes as established by precedents. One should easily identify whether a situation constitutes insurrection, as it should be apparent to anyone. The reason the giant opposition party and the prosecution team deleted insurrection from the trial subject is not to speed up proceedings, but because there is no actual insurrection.
Moreover, the December 3 state of emergency is historically the fastest concluded emergency from declaration to lifting. As a result, no command structure was established for the emergency headquarters, nor was an investigative headquarters organized under it. Thus, the state of emergency ended peacefully only after a few hours, and it cannot be classified as insurrection.
Now, I will speak about the National Cabinet meeting for the state of emergency. There are claims that the Cabinet meeting on the day of the emergency should not be considered a legitimate meeting. But if that was the case, then why did the cabinet members come to the presidential office on the night of December 3? Some contend that it was merely a casual meeting, but was the situation on that day fitting for a casual discussion? A casual meeting would require no quorum; why, then, did we wait until there was a quorum for the Cabinet meeting?
Starting at 8:30 p.m. that evening, cabinet members began to arrive one after another, and I explained the state of emergency to them, and the Minister of National Defense distributed the designated emergency proclamation. The cabinet members expressed concerns about potential economic and diplomatic difficulties, and as president, I articulated to them that while I held perspectives that were different from those of the cabinet members, the nation was in a state of emergency requiring immediate action. I reassured them not to worry about their concerns, such as the economic minister's worries about financial market turmoil or the foreign minister's concerns about relations with allied nations. They were thinking of past emergencies, which is why I urged them not to be anxious.
Though the National Cabinet meeting lasted for only five minutes after quorum was met, sufficient discussions had already taken place before that. The Cabinet meeting convened the next morning to lift the state of emergency and took only one minute. During regular cabinet meetings, elaborating on various items usually extends the discussion to about one hour; hence, the review time for individual agendas is extremely brief. Also, we cannot conduct a Cabinet meeting for a state of emergency in the same manner as regular or periodic Cabinet meetings due to urgency; maintaining security and minimizing the personnel needed for order maintenance are paramount.
Ex-Minister of Public Administration and Security Jeong Sang-min testified during the trial, saying, 'Having participated in over 100 Cabinet meetings, I have never seen substantive discussions or exchanges of ideas as I did in this one.' To facilitate the Cabinet meeting, I invited the chief of my secretariat and the head of my security office to join me, and since the matter at hand was a national security concern, I also included the Director of the National Intelligence Service.
On August 13, 1993, when President Kim Young-sam announced the financial real-name system as an urgent financial and economic order, the cabinet members did not know about the announcement until just prior to the meeting, and the records of the Cabinet meeting were created post-meeting. This has been thoroughly explained by the then-Minister of Labor, Lee In-jae. However, nobody claimed that there was no Cabinet meeting at that time, and the Constitutional Court ruled that the invocation of the emergency orders was constitutionally valid.
Honorable justices of the Constitutional Court, and citizens, I have conducted my presidency with the mindset of 'if there is a task that must be done at some point and someone has to do it, then I will do it now.' Therefore, during the first half of my term, I boldly pushed forward with the reform of education, labor, and pensions, which had been stalled for 30 years, as the key focuses of national reform.
I took the first step in consolidating the deferred integration that had long been stagnating, established the groundwork for educational reform such as the Neverending School project and the strengthening of connections with local industries, and created a new framework for labor law to adjust to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. I also popularized pension reform, formerly a national issue, by conducting extensive statistical analyses and in-depth public surveys to present viable plans to the National Assembly.
At the beginning of my presidency, the implementation of the promises and national tasks I had made to the citizens and voters, and the advancement of critical social reforms for the well-being of citizens were my priorities, which is why I have worked in alignment with that schedule. During any administration, carrying out election promises and national tasks takes precedence in the early stages, so there is little room to be concerned about political reforms. Then, before long, the terms of former presidents swiftly elapsed, leaving the outdated 1987 system intact. The political landscape has become an obstacle to societal advancement. Additionally, it is crucial to lower the thresholds in politics and administration to enable the youth, who will shape our national future, to participate in such decision-making.
If I return to my duties, I will concentrate on the latter part of my term on promoting constitutional amendments and political reforms that aim to leave a proper country to future generations while appropriately fitting the 1987 system to our society. From the outset of my presidency, I have been intending to pursue these reforms in the mid-term. Without the sacrifice and determination of a sitting president, amending the constitution and political reforms cannot proceed, and I believed that I should lead this change.
I have immediately pursued the return of the people to the Blue House, a pledge that many past presidents made as candidates but did not fulfill. I see my lack of obsession with the remaining term as an opportunity to see the amendment of the constitution and political reform as my ultimate mission. I will do my utmost to improve the 1987 system while ensuring that the national unity journey is embedded in these reform processes. Ultimately, national unity is forged through the constitution and constitutional values, so I believe that if constitutional amendments and political reforms are implemented correctly, that will align our divided citizens into unity.
Thus, while managing national affairs, I intend to delegate considerable authority to the prime minister, considering the rapidly changing international circumstances and global crises. Our economy is more dependent on foreign relations than that of any other nation. This is especially true since the advent of the Trump Administration in the U.S. that led to rapid changes in international order along with uncertainties in the global economy and security. The decisions we make now can turn a crisis into an opportunity or lead to an unrecoverable disaster. Based on my experience in establishing the strongest Korea-U.S. alliance and driving Korea-U.S.-Japan cooperation, I will dedicate myself to safeguarding national interests in foreign relations. I have endeavored for national unity through the National Integration Committee in the first half of my term, but I will continue to work towards integrating the entire country and enhancing nationwide synergy.
Dear justices of the Constitutional Court, first of all, I extend my sincere gratitude to the justices who have made dedicated efforts despite the tight schedule for this impeachment trial. This trial was focused on the points raised by the prosecution team, which led the deletion of insurrection from the grounds of impeachment. Consequently, I feel there was insufficient time to adequately convey the reasons and urgency for my declaration of the December 3 state of emergency. I have submitted related materials in good faith; please reflect deeply on the motivations behind this difficult decision made as president. Furthermore, given my unique position handling numerous state secrets, I believe the wisdom and insight of the justices will span areas I cannot fully explain. Again, I thank the justices for their hard work.
Dear citizens of South Korea, although it was an emergency proclaimed for the nation and its people, I sincerely apologize for the confusion and inconvenience caused to you throughout this process. There are citizens, particularly the youth, who have found themselves in difficult circumstances due to the events surrounding my arrest. I feel deeply saddened and remorseful, and I want to express my profound apologies.
When I ran for president, I resolved to dedicate my life to the nation. After the December 3 state of emergency and the impeachment motions, I saw many citizens bravely taking to the streets to defend me during the bitter cold. I have heard the voices of citizens criticizing and reproaching me. While there are differing claims, I believe they all stem from a shared love for South Korea. I genuinely thank all those citizens who have believed in and supported me despite my shortcomings. I will deeply engrain their admonitions in my heart. I will do everything in my power to enable a leap towards a new South Korea. Thank you.
저는 대통령에 출마할 때, 나라를 위해 목숨을 바치겠다고 결심을 했습니다. 지난 12·3 계엄과 탄핵 소추 이후 엄동설한에 저를 지키겠다며 거리로 나선 국민들을 보았습니다. 저를 비판하고 질책하는 국민들의 목소리도 들었습니다. 서로 다른 주장을 하고 있지만, 모두 대한민국을 사랑하는 마음이라고 생각합니다. 부족한 저를 지금까지 믿어주시고 응원을 보내주고 계신 국민 여러분께 진심으로 감사드립니다. 저의 잘못을 꾸짖는 국민의 질책도 가슴에 깊이 새기겠습니다. 새로운 대한민국으로 도약하는 디딤돌이 될 수 있도록, 모든 노력을 다하겠습니다. 감사합니다.