National security is an absolute value directly linked to the survival of the community, as well as the heaviest constitutional duty bestowed upon a sovereign leader. However, when security ceases to be a shield protecting the lives of the people and is instead privatized as a political tool to promote the safety of the regime and maintain power, the society faces an uncontrollable catastrophe. The judiciary's recent sentencing of former President Yoon Suk-yeol to 30 years in prison for approving the Pyongyang drone operation—deliberately escalating military tensions between North and South Korea to use it as a pretext for declaring emergency martial law—presents a tragic milestone that vividly demonstrates how the arrogance of power can violate the sanctuary of national security. 

The core of this ruling is the application of the charge of 'general treason' (aiding the enemy) under the Criminal Act. This provision strictly demands accountability for acts that harm the military interests of the Republic of Korea or militarily benefit an enemy state. The court rigorously pointed out that former President Yoon—who habitually called for the eradication of 'anti-state forces' during his presidency—was, paradoxically, the true threat that plunged the nation and its people into the peril of war for his private political agendas. The Pyongyang drone infiltration operation, aimed at scattering anti-North Korea leaflets, was not a mere matter of putting pressure on North Korea or executing a military response. According to the judiciary's judgment, it was part of a grand scenario designed to intentionally induce a military provocation from North Korea to overcome a political crisis facing the regime, and to use that provocation as an excuse to foster an atmosphere of fear domestically to justify emergency martial law. 

By sentencing former President Yoon and former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun to 30 years in prison each, and former Defense Counterintelligence Commander Yeo In-hyung to 15 years in prison, the court strictly defined the gravity of the crime they conspired to commit. A sovereign leader's misuse of military power to disrupt the peace regime on the Korean Peninsula and gamble with the citizens as hostages can never be exonerated under the guise of a 'high-level act of state'. The risk of inter-Korean military conflict, triggered by providing North Korea with a pretext for provocation, was an existential crime that directly threatened the right to life and property of frontline soldiers, residents of border areas, and the entire populace. Through this ruling, the court sternly warned of how disastrous the end of the privatization of national security is—a process that degraded national defense into a means of regime protection. 

The judicial punishment surrounding former President Yoon does not stop with this treason verdict. He currently faces a total of eight criminal trials, including a sentence of life imprisonment in the first instance for leading an insurrection, and seven years in prison in the second instance for unlawful arrest and abuse of authority. The reality that an individual who once wielded absolute, unchecked power at the pinnacle of authority now stands in court as a chief perpetrator of national destruction leaves a deep stain on our constitutional history, while paradoxically proving the self-purifying mechanism of democracy. Nevertheless, immediately after the sentencing, Yoon's side rejected the authority of the judiciary and announced their intent to appeal, claiming that "the court has degraded into a servant of power and aligned itself with the politically motivated special counsel's supplement." This attitude of evading responsibility and misrepresenting the essence of the matter as political persecution is nothing more than a final self-destructive move that demolishes the very value of the rule of law he once pledged to defend. 

This ruling must serve as an opportunity to re-establish the principle that the source of state power resides with the people, and that national security can never be traded for the safety of a regime. It is a natural conclusion of common sense that a leader who privatizes security, harms the military interests of the state, and puts the citizens in danger will ultimately face severe judgment before the law and history. We are now witnessing the final destination reached when power runs rampant outside of democratic control. Beyond the mere downfall of a former president, this sentencing will be remembered as a grave constitutional declaration that bars any future power from using national security and the lives of the people as political tools.

[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]