The first trial verdict in the case against former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo on charges including aiding the leader of a rebellion will be handed down on the 21st. The judiciary is expected to issue its first ruling on whether the Dec. 3 martial law should be punished as insurrection.
The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Agreement Division 33 (Presiding Judge Lee Jin-gwan) will hold the first-trial sentencing hearing for the former prime minister, who is charged with aiding the leader of a rebellion and engaging in important duties related to insurrection, at 2 p.m. in Courtroom 417. Despite having a duty as prime minister to check the president's arbitrary abuse of power, the former prime minister was indicted on Aug. 29 last year on charges of failing to stop and abetting the unlawful proclamation of martial law.
The former prime minister is also accused of signing, along with former President Yoon Suk-yeol and former Minister of the Ministry of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, the post hoc proclamation drafted by former Presidential Secretariat secretary Kang Ui-gu to remedy legal defects in the initial martial law proclamation after martial law was lifted, and then destroying it. He was also charged with perjury for testifying as a witness at the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial of the president in Feb. last year that he "did not recognize the martial law proclamation."
Special counsel team Cho Eun-suk sought a 15-year prison sentence for the former prime minister at the closing argument hearing on Nov. 26 last year. The special counsel team said, "As the No. 2 in the executive branch and as prime minister, the former prime minister was effectively the only person who could have stopped the insurrection, but abandoned the duty to serve the entire public and participated in the insurrection through a series of actions before and after the martial law proclamation."
By contrast, the former prime minister argued that he tried to stop former President Yoon Suk-yeol at the time of martial law. He added, "I failed to stop the martial law, but I never agreed with it or tried to help it. That is the most honest, final confession I can offer."
In addition, the former prime minister's side argues that the charge of aiding the leader of a rebellion does not stand because, apart from the proclamation of martial law, he did not know of any specific acts of insurrection. They also argued that the charge of engaging in important duties does not stand because former President Yoon only discussed martial law with former Minister of the Ministry of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, and he himself did not participate in any conspiracy.
This ruling is expected to be the first determination on whether the Dec. 3 martial law crisis constitutes the crime of insurrection.
Article 87 of the Criminal Act defines insurrection as "the act of causing a riot with the purpose of excluding state power from all or part of the territory of the Republic of Korea or of disrupting the constitutional order." For the martial law crisis to be recognized as insurrection, both the purpose of "disrupting the constitutional order" and the act of "riot" must be met. In particular, if martial law is recognized as insurrection, whether the former prime minister can be charged with participating in insurrection is a key issue.
The Supreme Court en banc previously held in the Chun Doo-hwan new military insurrection case that "even if those who participated in an insurrection did not plot or engage in all the series of riotous acts that constitute a single insurrection, if it is recognized that, as members of the insurrectionary group, they participated even partially in the plotting of individual acts included in the overall insurrection or contributed by other means, they cannot escape liability for the crime of insurrection for the entire series of riotous acts."
For participation in an insurrection to be found guilty, it must be recognized that one was a "member of the insurrectionary group" and "contributed to the acts of insurrection."