Seoul — A South Korean court has issued a fresh arrest warrant for former president Yoon Suk Yeol, extending his detention for up to six months as prosecutors pursue additional charges connected to his failed attempt to impose martial law in December 2024.
The warrant was granted on Friday after the court accepted arguments that Yoon could destroy evidence if released.
The detention order relates to a separate set of allegations added to the widening criminal cases surrounding Yoon’s short-lived declaration of martial law on 3 December 2024. Prosecutors indicted him in November 2025 on charges including “aiding an enemy state”, alleging he sought to provoke tensions with North Korea as part of an effort to justify military rule.
A special prosecutor said Yoon attempted to induce a confrontation between the South and North, citing evidence recovered from a military official’s mobile phone which referenced possible “provocations” such as “drones” and a “surgical strike”. Prosecutors have alleged that Yoon and senior former security officials planned a covert drone operation into North Korea to inflame tensions domestically.
The new warrant follows earlier court authorisations that kept Yoon in custody while investigations and trials progressed. In the latest case, the prior detention authority was due to expire on 18 January, and the court’s decision extends it for a maximum of six months, South Korean media reported.
Yoon has been held for much of the past year as multiple proceedings moved through the courts. He became the first sitting South Korean president to be detained when investigators took him into custody in January 2025, following weeks of resistance in which he used his presidential security detail to block law enforcement attempts to execute a warrant.
A court ordered his release in March 2025 on procedural grounds connected to the detention period, but prosecutors later sought renewed custody. Yoon was detained again in July 2025 amid concerns that he could interfere with evidence related to the insurrection investigation, and he has remained in custody while additional charges were considered.
The current detention is one element of a broader legal effort stemming from the December 2024 crisis. Yoon’s martial law declaration lasted only hours after lawmakers entered the National Assembly and voted to lift it. The episode led to his impeachment and, on 4 April 2025, the Constitutional Court unanimously removed him from office, triggering a snap election later that year.
South Korea’s current president, Lee Jae Myung, won the June 2025 election and has since sought to reverse high-profile decisions of the previous administration, including relocating the presidential workplace back to Cheong Wa Dae, the Blue House complex. His office said Lee commuted there for official work in late December 2025, ending a period in which the main presidential office operated from the Defence Ministry compound in Yongsan.
Yoon continues to face an insurrection trial linked to the martial law order, alongside other proceedings arising from the investigation into his actions while in office. Under South Korean law, conviction on rebellion-related charges can carry severe penalties, including life imprisonment or the death penalty, though executions have not been carried out for decades.
In parallel, prosecutors are pursuing obstruction of justice allegations and are seeking a 10-year prison term. A Seoul court is expected to deliver its verdict on 16 January.
The additional “aiding the enemy” indictment has drawn attention because it focuses on alleged actions involving North Korea. In October 2024, North Korea claimed South Korea had flown drones over Pyongyang to drop leaflets and released images of what it said were the remains of a downed South Korean military drone; South Korea’s military at the time declined to confirm or deny the allegation.
Yoon has denied that he intended to impose sustained military rule, arguing instead that the December 2024 declaration was intended as a warning about political conditions in the country. Prosecutors, however, have characterised the sequence of events as an attempted subversion of constitutional government, and the courts have repeatedly cited risks of evidence destruction when approving detention requests.
