[외국어] 윤석열 대통령 탄핵 심판 영어로 공부하기

  2025년 4월 4일, 대한민국의 헌법재판소는 대통령 윤석열에 대한 탄핵심판 선고를 내렸습니다.
이 역사적인 판결문은 단순히 정치적 의미를 넘어, 고급 영어 문장과 법률 용어를 익힐 수 있는 아주 좋은 학습 자료가 됩니다.

이번 포스팅에서는 해당 판결문의 전체 내용을 영어로 번역 (Chat GPT 활용) 하고, 중요한 단어와 표현들을 해설 + 예문 형태로 정리하여 영어 실력 향상에 도움이 되도록 구성했습니다.

 

---

 

헌법재판소 탄핵심판 선고 (출처 : 연합뉴스)

 

📘 PART 1: START OF THE VERDICT

“Now we begin the ruling on the 2024Hun-Na8 impeachment case against President Yoon Suk-yeol.”

 

---

 

🔎 [Section I: On the Procedural Legitimacy of the Impeachment (적법요건)]

Let us first examine the procedural requirements.

➀ Whether the declaration of martial law is subject to judicial review

Even if the declaration of martial law is considered a highly political act, its constitutionality and legality may still be subject to judicial review. This is consistent with the purpose of impeachment, which is to safeguard the constitutional order from violations by high-ranking officials.

➁ Whether the impeachment resolution was invalid due to the absence of review by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee

The Constitution delegates impeachment procedure to the legislature, and the National Assembly Act allows discretion as to whether the Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation. Therefore, the absence of such an investigation does not invalidate the impeachment vote.

➂ Whether the principle of res judicata was violated

The National Assembly Act prohibits reintroducing a failed motion during the same session. The previous impeachment attempt against the respondent failed in the 418th regular session. However, the current motion was submitted during the 419th special session, and thus does not violate the principle of res judicata.

(Note: Justice Jung Hyung-sik provided a supplementary opinion suggesting the need for future legislation to limit the number of impeachment attempts even across different sessions.)

➃ Whether the termination of martial law and the absence of tangible harm negate the need for judgment

Even though martial law was lifted quickly and no direct damage occurred, the alleged violation had already occurred at the time of the declaration. Therefore, the case retains its judicial interest and merit.

➄ Whether the shift from criminal allegations (e.g., insurrection) to constitutional violations invalidates the motion

Reframing the same underlying facts under different legal grounds (from criminal code to constitutional violations) does not constitute a withdrawal or modification of the impeachment cause. Therefore, such reframing is permissible without requiring a new procedure.

The respondent argues that the criminal charges were essential to securing enough votes in the National Assembly. However, this is speculative and lacks objective evidence.

➅ Whether the impeachment motion was an abuse of power aimed at seizing the presidency

Since the impeachment motion followed legal procedures and sufficient grounds for constitutional or legal violations were established, it cannot be seen as an abuse of power.

🟢 Conclusion: The impeachment petition is procedurally valid and lawful.

 

---

 

📚 핵심 법률/정치 용어 정리 + 예시문

 

용어 (Korean)영어 표현설명 (Definition)예시문 (Example Sentence)

탄핵소추	impeachment motion	고위공직자를 헌법 또는 법률 위반으로 파면시키기 위해 국회가 의결하는 절차	The National Assembly passed an impeachment motion against the President.
국무회의	Cabinet meeting / State Council	대통령을 중심으로 한 최고 행정회의체로, 주요 국가정책 심의	The declaration of martial law must be deliberated in a Cabinet meeting.
계엄	martial law	국가 비상사태 시 군이 치안을 담당하게 되는 긴급조치	The President declared martial law citing national instability.
일사부재의 원칙	principle of res judicata / single session rule	같은 회기 중 동일한 안건을 다시 제출할 수 없다는 원칙	The motion was invalidated based on the principle of res judicata.
헌법재판소	Constitutional Court	헌법 위반 여부를 심사하는 최고 헌법기관	The Constitutional Court delivered its verdict on the impeachment case.

 

---

 

📘 PART 2: ON THE RESPONDENT’S VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS

“Let us now examine whether the respondent violated the Constitution or any laws in the performance of official duties, and whether such violations are grave enough to justify removal from office.”

We will review each allegation separately.

---

① On the Declaration of Martial Law

According to the Constitution and the Martial Law Act, one of the substantive requirements for declaring emergency martial law is that a national crisis must actually exist, such as war, rebellion, or a comparable emergency where the disruption of social order is so severe that the functioning of administration and the judiciary is significantly impaired.

The respondent argued that a grave national crisis had occurred due to the opposition party's control of the National Assembly, their push for multiple impeachment motions, unilateral legislative activity, and attempts to cut the national budget.

Following the respondent’s inauguration, the National Assembly introduced a total of 22 impeachment motions against high-ranking officials, including the Minister of the Interior and Safety, prosecutors, the chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, and the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection. These developments raised concerns that the impeachment process was being used as a political tool rather than based on proven violations.

However, at the time martial law was declared, only two impeachment cases—against one prosecutor and the KCC chairman—were still pending.

The respondent also claimed that problematic legislative bills were passed unilaterally by the opposition. However, the President had either requested reconsideration or withheld promulgation, so those bills had not taken effect.

The 2025 budget bill had not yet been voted on by the plenary session of the National Assembly, and therefore had no impact at the time martial law was declared.

Thus, the exercise of the National Assembly’s powers—including impeachment, legislation, and budget review—did not constitute an actual crisis justifying the declaration of martial law.

Even if the National Assembly's actions were unlawful or excessive, they should have been addressed through normal constitutional means, such as the President’s veto or the Constitutional Court’s review. Such circumstances do not justify the exercise of emergency powers.

The respondent also claimed that martial law was declared to address concerns over electoral fraud. However, mere suspicion does not meet the standard of an actual national crisis.

The National Election Commission had already addressed most security vulnerabilities before the general election. It also introduced transparency measures such as 24-hour CCTV monitoring and hand-counting audits. These measures undermine the credibility of the respondent’s justification.

Therefore, even considering all of the respondent's arguments, there was no objectively justifiable national crisis at the time of the declaration.

Moreover, the Constitution and the Martial Law Act require that martial law be declared only when the use of military force is necessary for national defense or public safety. However, the issues raised by the respondent—such as legislative conflict or election suspicion—should be resolved through political, institutional, or judicial means, not by military intervention.

The respondent argued that the martial law was intended as a symbolic or warning measure to alert the public to political instability. However, this purpose does not align with the lawful objectives of martial law under the Martial Law Act.

Furthermore, the respondent went beyond a mere declaration. He mobilized the military and police to interfere with the National Assembly’s functions. As such, his claim of a symbolic or warning action cannot be accepted.

Conclusion: The declaration of martial law failed to meet both substantive and procedural requirements under the Constitution and the Martial Law Act.

---

 

📚 용어 해설 & 예시문 (계엄 관련)

 

한국어영어 표현설명예시문

 

비상계엄	emergency martial law	국가 위기 상황에서 군이 통치를 대신하는 제도	The President declared emergency martial law during the crisis.
실체적 요건	substantive requirement	법률의 본질적 기준	Substantive requirements must be met for any declaration of martial law.
재의요구	request for reconsideration / presidential veto	대통령이 국회가 의결한 법안을 다시 심의해달라고 요청하는 절차	The President submitted a request for reconsideration to the National Assembly.
국정 마비	government paralysis	입법-행정부 간 충돌 등으로 정책 실행이 중단된 상태	The President argued that government paralysis justified his emergency measures.
사법적 수단	judicial remedy / legal recourse	법적으로 문제를 해결할 수 있는 절차나 제도	Political disputes should be addressed through judicial remedies.

 

---

 

📘 PART 3: ON THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS AND MILITARY DEPLOYMENT

🔹 Procedural Violations in Declaring Martial Law

According to the Constitution, the declaration of martial law and the appointment of the Martial Law Commander must undergo deliberation by the State Council (Cabinet).

The respondent explained the intention to declare martial law briefly to the Prime Minister and nine other Cabinet members. However, he failed to share the specific contents—such as the identity of the Martial Law Commander—and did not allow other members to express their opinions. Therefore, it cannot be considered a legitimate Cabinet deliberation.

Moreover, the respondent declared martial law despite the absence of required signatures from the Prime Minister and relevant ministers. He also failed to publicly announce the time, region, and commander of the martial law, and did not promptly notify the National Assembly. These actions violate the procedural requirements stipulated by the Constitution and the Martial Law Act.

---

🔹 Deployment of Military and Police Forces to the National Assembly

The respondent ordered the Minister of National Defense to deploy military forces to the National Assembly.

Military personnel entered the National Assembly premises via helicopters, and some even broke windows to gain access to the main building. The respondent instructed special forces commanders to "break down the doors and drag the people out," based on the assumption that a quorum had not been reached.

Additionally, the respondent called the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency six times and gave instructions through the Martial Law Commander to block access to the National Assembly. As a result, several lawmakers were unable to enter the building—some had to climb over fences.

Furthermore, the Minister of National Defense instructed the head of the Defense Counterintelligence Command to locate 14 individuals, including the Speaker of the National Assembly and leaders of political parties, for possible detention. The respondent also contacted the First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service, asking for support in this surveillance operation.

Through these actions, the respondent obstructed the National Assembly’s constitutional powers, violating lawmakers' rights to vote and deliberate, and infringing upon their immunity from arrest.

By targeting political party leaders, the respondent also violated the freedom of political activity guaranteed by the Constitution.

The deployment of military and police forces for political purposes caused direct confrontation between the armed forces and civilians, severely compromising the military’s political neutrality and the constitutional duty of the President to command the armed forces.

---

🔹 Proclamation of Martial Law Ordinances (포고령)

Through the emergency ordinance, the respondent prohibited activities of the National Assembly, local assemblies, and political parties. These actions violated the Constitution, which guarantees the National Assembly’s right to request the termination of martial law and recognizes political parties as essential to democratic governance.

By restricting basic rights such as political freedom, collective action, and freedom of occupation without proper legal grounds or court warrants, the respondent violated the principles of democratic governance, separation of powers, and the constitutional requirement for due process during emergency rule.

---

🔹 Raid on the National Election Commission (NEC)

The respondent instructed the Minister of National Defense to use military forces to inspect the NEC’s computer systems. Military personnel entered the NEC building, confiscated staff members’ phones, and recorded internal systems, all without a warrant.

These actions constitute an illegal search and seizure, violating the principle of judicial warrant and infringing on the independence of the NEC.

---

🔹 Surveillance of Legal Professionals

As previously noted, the respondent ordered location tracking of certain individuals in preparation for potential arrests. These included former Chief Justices and recently retired Supreme Court Justices.

Such actions threaten the independence of the judiciary by creating pressure on incumbent judges and suggesting that they, too, could be targeted by the executive branch.

---

📚 주요 용어 해설 + 예시

한국어영어 표현설명예시문

국무회의	State Council / Cabinet meeting	행정부 최고 회의체	The declaration of martial law must be reviewed by the State Council.
계엄사령관	Martial Law Commander	계엄 하에서 군 작전을 책임지는 지휘관	The President failed to identify the Martial Law Commander in the briefing.
불체포특권	parliamentary immunity from arrest	국회의원의 체포나 구금을 금지하는 헌법상 권리	The forced removal of lawmakers violated their parliamentary immunity from arrest.
정치적 중립성	political neutrality	군·공무원이 정치에 개입하지 않도록 요구되는 원칙	The deployment of soldiers to the legislature breached political neutrality.
포고령	martial law ordinance / emergency decree	계엄 하에서 발효되는 명령이나 금지 조치	The ordinance prohibited the functioning of all political parties.
압수수색	search and seizure	수사 목적으로 물건을 압수하거나 장소를 수색하는 절차	The military’s unauthorized search of the NEC violated constitutional protections.

---

 

📘 PART 4: GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATIONS AND THE DECISION TO REMOVE FROM OFFICE

🔹 Interference with Judicial Independence

As previously mentioned, the respondent participated in efforts to track the locations of individuals—including former Chief Justices and retired Supreme Court Justices—with the intent of possible detention.

Such actions convey a chilling message to the judiciary: that any judge could become a target of executive power. This undermines the constitutional principle of judicial independence.

---

📘 PART 5: FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATIONS

Let us now assess whether the respondent’s violations are serious enough to justify removal from office.

The respondent, in an attempt to overcome political deadlock with the National Assembly, declared martial law and mobilized military and police forces to obstruct the legislature's constitutional functions. In doing so, he denied the principle of popular sovereignty and democracy, disregarded constitutional governance, and broadly infringed upon the fundamental rights of the people through emergency ordinances.

These actions directly violated the core principles of the rule of law and democratic order, seriously endangering the stability of the constitutional republic.

Although the National Assembly was able to promptly pass a resolution demanding the termination of martial law, this was only possible due to citizen resistance and the military’s passive enforcement. This does not lessen the seriousness of the respondent’s violations.

Presidential authority is granted solely by the Constitution. The respondent exercised one of the gravest powers—the emergency power—beyond the limits set by the Constitution. This undermined public trust in the office of the President.

Since the respondent’s inauguration, the opposition-dominated National Assembly had actively pursued numerous impeachments, halting the duties of several high-ranking officials. The 2025 national budget was passed without increases and with cuts, solely by the opposition, in a historic first.

The respondent's major policies were stalled due to opposition resistance, and he repeatedly exercised the right to request legislative reconsideration. Believing that the opposition was causing a governmental paralysis, the respondent likely felt a deep responsibility to act.

While the President's view of the opposition’s actions as an abuse of power may be politically understandable, political conflict must be resolved within the framework of democracy and constitutional order.

The National Assembly should have engaged in dialogue and compromise, respecting minority opinions. Likewise, the President should have regarded the National Assembly as a partner in governance.

However, the respondent treated the legislature as an adversary, which undermines the foundation of democratic politics.

Even if the President believed that the National Assembly's actions were a “tyranny of the majority,” he should have used constitutional means to restore balance. He had a chance to persuade the people through the general election held approximately two years into his term. Even if the outcome was not favorable, he should not have attempted to disregard the will of the voters who supported the opposition.

Instead, the respondent abused his emergency powers to declare martial law, repeating the dark history of misused presidential authority. This shocked the nation and caused disruption across society, the economy, politics, and foreign affairs.

As President of all citizens, the respondent failed in his duty to unify society, rising above partisan interests. He used military and police forces to undermine the constitutional authority of other state institutions and violated the basic rights of the people.

In doing so, he betrayed the public trust and failed to uphold his constitutional duty to defend the democratic order.

These unconstitutional and unlawful actions constitute grave violations that cannot be tolerated from the standpoint of constitutional protection.

Considering the severe and far-reaching effects on the constitutional order, the benefit of removing the respondent from office outweighs the national harm that may result from his dismissal.

---

📘 PART 6: FINAL VERDICT

All Justices of the Constitutional Court unanimously rule as follows:
The respondent, President Yoon Suk-yeol, is hereby removed from office.

This concludes the ruling.

Time of decision: 11:22 AM.

---

📚 추가 법률 용어 해설 + 예문

한국어영어 표현설명예시문

 

사법부 독립	judicial independence	행정부나 외부의 간섭 없이 재판이 공정하게 이루어져야 한다는 원칙	Tracking judges threatens judicial independence.
민주공화국	democratic republic	국민이 주권자이며 법치와 분권이 보장된 국가 체제	Korea is a democratic republic governed by constitutional order.
국가긴급권	emergency powers	대통령이 비상상황에서 행사하는 특별 권한	The misuse of emergency powers led to his impeachment.
국민주권주의	popular sovereignty	모든 권력은 국민으로부터 나온다는 민주주의 원칙	Obstructing the legislature denies the principle of popular sovereignty.
헌법질서	constitutional order	헌법이 정한 국가의 기본 원칙과 체계	His actions posed a serious threat to the constitutional order.
파면	removal from office	공직자에게서 직위를 박탈하는 행위	The court ordered his removal from office.