The special counsel investigating the insurrection case led by Cho Eun-suk appealed the first-trial ruling that sentenced former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min to seven years in prison on charges including engaging in important duties related to insurrection.
According to legal sources on the 18th, the special counsel said it filed an appeal against the first-trial result for the former Minister, citing factual misapprehension, misinterpretation of law, and unfair sentencing. The special counsel team had sought a 15-year prison term for the former Minister.
Earlier, the Criminal Agreement Division 32 of the Seoul Central District Court (presiding judge Ryu Kyung-jin) found the former Minister guilty of the charge of engaging in important duties related to insurrection for requesting cooperation from then National Fire Agency Commissioner Heo Seok-gon after receiving from former President Yoon Suk-yeol, on Dec. 3 last year, the day martial law was declared, instructions to blockade the National Assembly and other key institutions and to cut power and water to news organizations.
It also found the former Minister guilty of perjury for false testimony to the effect, during the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial pleadings for the former President in February last year, that power and water cuts were not ordered and that no such instruction was received from the President.
However, it acquitted the former Minister of charges including abuse of authority obstructing the exercise of rights, which alleged that by conveying the power and water cut instructions to the former National Fire Agency chief, the former Minister caused him to perform duties without legal obligation, such as establishing a readiness posture to respond immediately to related police requests, and sentenced the former Minister to seven years in prison.
This falls far short of the special counsel team's sentencing request of 15 years. It is interpreted that the special counsel team decided to appeal not only because a second-trial judgment is needed on some acquittals, but also because the sentence is excessively low compared with culpability.
Earlier, the former Minister also appealed the first-trial ruling on the 13th.