Top court upholds convictions in Seoul court riot

South Korea’s Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld guilty verdicts for 18 people involved in a violent incident at the Seoul Western District Court, sparked by an arrest warrant issued for former President Yoon Suk Yeol.

The defendants were among 63 people indicted in February last year. After appealing lower court rulings, they lost at the final stage. Fourteen were sentenced to prison terms ranging from one to four years, while three received suspended sentences. A documentary director who said he entered the court to film was fined 2 million won. More than 30 others indicted later are still on trial.

The unrest broke out in the early hours of Jan. 19 last year and marked a serious challenge to the rule of law. Protesters smashed glass doors with bricks and metal bars and forced their way inside, saying they intended to identify the judge who issued the warrant. They moved to the seventh floor, where the judge’s office was located, broke down doors and searched the area.

They also assaulted police officers trying to stop them, taking shields and batons, and surrounded a vehicle carrying investigators from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials. Some defendants later argued in court that they acted out of patriotism or denied wrongdoing, saying they had not “broken in” but had simply “entered.”

Authorities say the case goes beyond those directly involved. Investigators have examined whether others encouraged the violence. Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon of Sarang Jeil Church is under investigation over remarks at a rally in Gwanghwamun and allegations that he directed protesters toward the court. Conservative YouTuber Shin Hae-sik has claimed that officials from the presidential office asked far-right content creators to mobilize supporters.

Before his detention, Yoon repeatedly resisted attempts to execute the warrant, sending messages to supporters that he would continue to fight, a stance critics say helped fuel tensions.

Legal experts say the ruling is only a first step. They argue that authorities should also investigate those who incited the violence and scrutinize online figures who broadcast the unrest while collecting donations. Without addressing the broader environment that allows extremist groups to benefit from political polarization, similar incidents could happen again.