On the 21st, the court sentenced former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who is accused of engaging in important duties in an insurrection, to 23 years in prison and took him into custody in court. Earlier, the special counsel investigating the insurrection case had sought a 15-year sentence for the former prime minister. The sentence is heavier than the recommendation.
The Criminal Agreement Division 33 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Lee Jin-gwan) handed down the verdict at 2 p.m. in Supreme Courtroom 417, opening the first-instance sentencing hearing in the case against the former prime minister on charges including aiding the ringleaders of the insurrection and engaging in important duties in an insurrection.
The bench said of the former prime minister, "There is no evidence to view that he more actively participated by conspiring in advance in the insurrection of Yoon Suk-yeol (former president) and others or by directing the execution of acts." It also said the former prime minister served in public office for a long time and received many decorations, is elderly, and has no prior record.
However, it said the Dec. 3 emergency martial law amounted to a palace coup and must be punished severely. The court said, "Viewed in world history, palace coups in many cases succeed and the power holder becomes a dictator. There are many examples of the nation and society as a whole falling into confusion that is difficult to recover from," adding, "The Dec. 3 insurrection corresponds to an insurrection from above, and the degree of danger is incomparable to an insurrection from below."
It continued, "Supreme Court precedents on prior insurrection cases, which correspond to insurrections from below, cannot serve as a standard when determining the sentence for a defendant who joined an insurrection from above," and added, "In Korea, which has developed into an advanced country, the economic and political shock caused by the occurrence of a palace coup appears to be incomparable to prior insurrection acts."
The court said, "It is necessary to block insurrectionary acts in advance, and to achieve this purpose it is inevitable to punish those who joined the insurrection heavily," and added, "There is no material to view that the defendant is reflecting seriously or has made any effort to restore the damage suffered by the state and the people due to the defendant's criminal acts."