Former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min was sentenced on appeal to nine years in prison on charges including conveying orders to cut power and water to news outlets during the Dec. 3 martial law. The appeals court, while finding Lee guilty of the main charges as in the first trial, deemed the initial sentence too light for the culpability and raised it from seven to nine years in prison.
The Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul High Court (presiding judge Yoon Sung-sik, senior judge) on the 12th sentenced the former Minister to nine years in prison on charges including engaging in important duties for insurrection and perjury.
Lee was indicted and detained on charges that, at the time of the Dec. 3, 2024 declaration of martial law, the former President Yoon Suk-yeol gave him instructions to blockade key institutions such as the National Assembly and to cut power and water to certain media outlets, which he then conveyed to former National Fire Agency Administrator Heo Seok-gon. As Minister of the Interior and Safety, the ministry in charge of martial law, he was also charged with failing to prevent and instead participating in an unconstitutional and unlawful declaration of martial law.
The appeals court viewed Lee's remark to former Administrator Heo—"If you are contacted (by the police), cooperate and take appropriate measures"—as a key act in carrying out the insurrection. Lee's side argued that he never received any document ordering power and water cuts and that he merely asked the National Fire Agency administrator, "Was there a request for power and water cuts?" without giving a direct order, but the court did not accept this.
The claim that he did not know the illegality of the martial law was also rejected. The court said, "An ordinary person with a sense of the law could fully recognize the unconstitutionality and illegality of this case," adding, "We cannot possibly accept the claim that there was no general awareness of insurrection."
Most of the testimony given during the impeachment trial of the former President Yoon was also recognized as perjury. The court found that Lee's statements to the effect that he did not receive a document from the former president ordering power and water cuts and that he did not order the fire agency administrator to cooperate were false testimony. However, as in the first trial, the testimony to the effect that he did not witness the former president delivering documents related to martial law to former Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Choi Sang-mok was found not guilty.
The charge of abuse of power to interfere with the exercise of rights also remained not guilty, as in the first trial. The court found it difficult to conclude that former Administrator Heo ordered the Seoul Metropolitan Fire and Disaster Headquarters to cooperate with power and water cuts, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to find that frontline fire stations had a ready posture to respond immediately to police requests. This means the "result of making someone perform a duty-free act" required for the crime of abuse of authority was not established.
In explaining the sentence, the court said, "The measures to cut power and water to news outlets ordered by the defendant would not only physically make it impossible to publish news critical of martial law, but also pose a grave threat to the life and physical safety of the people working there," adding, "It is an unlawful act that cannot be permitted even under a lawful martial law situation."
It continued, "Given that the defendant was in a position responsible for public safety and disaster management at the time martial law was declared, the culpability and the degree of blame are very serious."
The court also viewed Lee's post-incident attitude as an unfavorable factor in sentencing. The court said, "The defendant was in a position to accurately assess the requirements for martial law and assist the president, and was well aware that the declaration of martial law at the time was unlawful," adding, "Nevertheless, Lee displayed a stance that appeared to tolerate the declaration of martial law or consistently sought to evade legal responsibility, making the blameworthiness very high."
It further stated, "Although the defendant had the position, authority, and time to decide independently whether to carry out the order to cooperate with power and water cuts, Lee ultimately chose, at the final moment, to follow an unconstitutional and unlawful order," adding, "The unlawfulness of actively committing perjury to conceal the substantive truth of engaging in important duties for insurrection can by no means be considered minor."
However, the facts that Lee did not conspire or prepare in advance for martial law, did not proactively plan the power and water cuts, and did not play a large role in the rioting acts of the insurrection were considered favorable circumstances. While the court also took into account that he had no prior criminal record, it added, "Given the defendant's career and the nature of the crime, the absence of a prior record should be considered only to a limited extent."