Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was sentenced to 15 years in prison on appeal for allegedly taking part in the Dec. 3 martial law. Although the sentence was reduced by eight years from the first trial, the appellate court also found that the former prime minister abandoned the prime minister's duty to provide checks and took part in creating the procedural facade of an insurrection.
The Criminal Division 12-1 of the Seoul High Court (High Court Judges Lee Seung-cheol, Cho Jin-gu, and Kim Min-a) on the 7th sentenced the former prime minister to 15 years in prison on charges including engaging in important duties related to an insurrection. In the first trial, the court sentenced the former prime minister to 23 years in prison.
The former prime minister was initially indicted for aiding and abetting the insurrection mastermind crimes of former President Yoon Suk-yeol. Later, at the court's request, the special prosecutor for the insurrection amended the indictment, adding the charge of engaging in important duties related to an insurrection.
The appellate court found most of the former prime minister's main charges guilty. The court said, "Under Korea's constitutional order, acts that, through means such as violence, make it impossible for state institutions to exercise their powers or extinguish constitutional functions can never be tolerated," and added, "The crime of insurrection infringes on the democratic basic order under the Constitution itself and is a grave offense incomparable to any other crime."
The court viewed as engaging in important duties related to an insurrection the former prime minister's acts of recommending the convening of a Cabinet meeting at the time of the Dec. 3, 2024 declaration of martial law, and attempting to obtain signatures from Cabinet members on related documents after the declaration. However, it overturned and acquitted the first-trial finding that recognized an omission offense in relation to creating the appearance of Cabinet deliberation.
The court said the former prime minister "engaged in important duties in the insurrection, including creating the appearance that the constitutionally required prior procedure of Cabinet deliberation had been followed, and discussing with the Ministers of relevant ministries how to implement follow-up measures such as cutting off electricity and water to a specific media outlet so they could be carried out."
The prime minister's constitutional status was also reflected in the sentencing. The court pointed out, "The defendant, as prime minister, is the president's primary aide and the second-in-command of the executive branch, and as the vice chair of the Cabinet, the nation's highest policy deliberation body, had a duty to assist so that the president's powers would be exercised constitutionally and lawfully, and to duly check and control any wrongful exercise of power."
The court went on, "After being appointed a Deputy Director in the executive branch in 1970, during military service in 1972 and while serving as an economic official from 1970 to around 1980, the defendant experienced unconstitutional and unlawful martial law measures and insurrectionary situations, and thus was well aware of the widespread damage and chaos such crises cause, and their seriousness and gravity."
The appellate court also found guilty the charges related to the post-facto martial law declaration document. The court viewed as constituting falsification of official documents and violations of the Presidential Records Act the acts in which the former prime minister, on a document drafted by former Presidential Secretary for Administrative Affairs Kang Ui-gu to remedy procedural defects after the declaration of martial law, respectively signed with former President Yoon and former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun and then had it destroyed.
It was also deemed perjury that the former prime minister, appearing as a witness at the impeachment trial of the former president on Feb. 20 last year, testified to the effect that "I did not see the martial law proclamation." However, differing from the first trial, the court found not guilty the statement to the effect that "I did not see the former Minister giving the former Minister documents related to martial law," saying it is difficult to conclude it was perjury.
As in the first trial, part of the charges of engaging in important duties related to an insurrection also resulted in acquittals. The court did not recognize as engaging in important duties the former prime minister's acts of calling then ruling party floor leader Choo Kyung-ho after the declaration of martial law to check the situation in the National Assembly, delaying Cabinet deliberation after the lifting of martial law, and agreeing to attend a scheduled event in place of the former president at the former president's direction. The court also found not guilty the charge of exercising the post-facto martial law proclamation, which was a false official document.
In stating the reasons for sentencing, the court rebuked, "The defendant abandoned the weighty duties of the authority and position entrusted to the defendant and took the side of participating in the insurrection by seeking to furnish procedural legitimacy to martial law, and, in order to conceal culpability, even committed subsequent offenses, making the culpability very grave."
The court added, "The defendant repeatedly says, 'I cannot remember due to the shock of martial law,' appears in a hurry to evade responsibility, or gives statements that are hard to accept," and said, "Even taking into account the defendant's in-court statement that the defendant feels a heavy sense of responsibility before the people and history and spends every day in self-reproach, such an attitude cannot escape condemnation."
However, the court considered as favorable sentencing factors that the former prime minister served as a public official for over 50 years and that there is insufficient material to view the former prime minister as having conspired in advance or led the insurrection in an organized way. It also reflected in the sentence that, after the National Assembly passed a resolution demanding the lifting of martial law, the former prime minister convened and presided over the Cabinet in place of the president, resulting in the lifting of martial law in about six hours.
Immediately after the sentencing, the special prosecutor for the insurrection said, "Although it does not reach the first-trial sentence, we consider it a quite meaningful ruling," and added, "We will decide whether to appeal after analyzing the judgment." The former prime minister's attorney said, "It is unacceptable in terms of facts and law," and added, "We will appeal to correct it."