On the 29th, the special counsel for the insurrection applied six charges, including 'aiding and abetting the leader of the insurrection,' against former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and referred him to trial without detention. This occurred two days after a court dismissed the arrest warrant previously requested by the special counsel against the former Prime Minister. Former Prime Minister Han is accused of aiding and abetting the declaration of martial law by former President Yoon Suk-yeol on December 3.
Special Counsel Park Ji-young held a press briefing that morning and stated, "At 10:30 a.m. that day, charges were filed against former Prime Minister Han for aiding the leader of the insurrection, forgery of false official documents, use of forged official documents, destruction of public documents, violation of the Presidential Records Management Act, and perjury."
Special Counsel Park noted, "The defendant (former Prime Minister Han) was the highest constitutional institution that could have prevented the president's unconstitutional and unlawful martial law. Despite knowing that the president would infringe upon the basic rights of the people and violate the constitutional order, he did not fulfill his constitutional duties and actively acted to secure the procedural legitimacy of the unconstitutional and unlawful martial law, thereby consenting to it."
He added, "The defendant's actions stemmed from the belief that the martial law declared on December 3 would succeed, similar to the previous loyalist coup d'état, considering his public service record. When an extensive investigation was conducted, he attempted to conceal his actions by discarding false official documents and committing perjury in front of the entire nation."
Former Prime Minister Han is accused of participating in or aiding the declaration of martial law by former President Yoon Suk-yeol on December 3 last year. He is suspected of having suggested the convening of a cabinet meeting to provide formal legitimacy to the martial law without preventing the unconstitutional and unlawful declaration by former President Yoon.
In this regard, Special Counsel Park said, "In the CCTV related to the cabinet meeting, there is a scene where former Prime Minister Han talks with then-Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun while checking the number of cabinet members needed for the meeting with his fingers." He also noted that after the cabinet meeting, former Prime Minister Han requested cabinet members to sign the documents related to the meeting, and after former President Yoon declared martial law, there was footage of substantial discussions with former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min.
Former Prime Minister Han is also suspected of being involved in the process of drafting and then discarding a new martial law declaration after former President Yoon declared martial law. It is reported that former Prime Minister Han signed a document drafted by former Chief of Staff Kang Yi-goo after the martial law was declared, and a few days later requested that it be treated as if it never existed, saying that 'if the fact of the post-event document creation becomes known, it could cause controversy.' This document was ultimately discarded.
Additionally, former Prime Minister Han is also suspected of perjury in relation to the impeachment trial of former President Yoon and in the National Assembly, claiming that he was 'unaware of the martial law declaration.'
Meanwhile, the special counsel decided to prosecute former Prime Minister Han without detention just two days after the court dismissed the arrest warrant against him. Earlier, the special counsel had requested an arrest warrant on the 24th for the same six charges disclosed that day.
On the 27th, Director General Jeong Jae-wook of the Seoul Central District Court conducted a preliminary examination of the defendant (arrest warrant review) against former Prime Minister Han and dismissed the arrest warrant. Director General Jeong stated that the reason for the dismissal was, "There is room for dispute regarding the legal assessment of significant facts and the defendant's series of actions, and it is difficult to say that there is a risk of evidence destruction or flight."