Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was sentenced to 15 years in prison on appeal for charges including performing a key role in an insurrection. The appellate court ruled that the emergency martial law declaration constituted an insurrection and recognized acts such as creating the appearance of Cabinet deliberation as participation in the insurrection. However, unlike the original ruling, which broadly acknowledged the prime minister's responsibility simply for failing to prevent the martial law declaration, the appellate court interpreted this narrowly and reduced the sentence.
The Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 12-1, presided over by Judge Lee Seung-cheol, overturned the original 23-year sentence and sentenced Han to 15 years on Friday on charges including performing a key role in an insurrection. This marks the first appellate ruling among Cabinet members indicted on insurrection-related charges.
Han was indicted on charges of failing to prevent and aiding former President Yoon Suk-yeol's illegal declaration of emergency martial law in his capacity as prime minister and vice chairman of the Cabinet. He also faces charges of drafting and destroying a post-event martial law declaration document to cover up legal defects in the original declaration, as well as perjury for testifying at Yoon's impeachment trial that he had been unaware of the martial law declaration document.
The appellate court upheld most of the original guilty verdicts. The court acknowledged that Han had received the emergency martial law documents and proclamation at the presidential office before the martial law declaration. Based on the content regarding the blockade of the National Assembly, the court noted that Han had recognized this emergency martial law could lead to military deployment and large-scale riotous acts aimed at subverting the constitutional order. On the premise of this awareness of constitutional subversion, the court found him guilty of acts such as creating the appearance of Cabinet deliberation and drafting the post-event declaration. Discussing with former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min the implementation of measures to cut off electricity and water to media outlets was also judged to constitute performing a key role in an insurrection.
However, the court ruled Han not guilty on the charge of attempting to obtain Cabinet members' countersignatures after the Cabinet meeting, overturning the original ruling. "A signature request merely for confirming the attendee list cannot be conclusively deemed a request for countersignature," the court explained. In particular, regarding the original ruling's broad recognition of crimes of omission (responsibility for failing to do what should have been done) in connection with creating the appearance of Cabinet deliberation, the appellate court took a more limited view. "It is difficult to find that a quasi-crime of omission is established separately from the act of commission," the court ruled. The court reconstructed the scope of the guilty verdict around active acts of participation, holding that responsibility cannot be imposed merely on the grounds of "failing to prevent."
The court also overturned the original guilty verdict and found Han not guilty on the perjury charge related to his testimony at Yoon's impeachment trial to the effect that "he had never seen Kim Yong-hyun deliver documents to Lee Sang-min." "Whether testimony is false must be determined comprehensively based on the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony, and the purpose of the questioning," the court said. "The testimony cannot be arbitrarily interpreted as meaning that he had never seen the martial law declaration or any martial law-related documents at all."
In its sentencing explanation, the court emphasized that insurrection is a crime that violates the fundamental order of the state and is incomparable to any other crime. "The defendant directly experienced unconstitutional and illegal emergency martial law and insurrection situations in the 1970s and 1980s, and was well aware of the extensive damage and serious social chaos that resulted," the court said. "Nevertheless, he abandoned the grave responsibility associated with his authority and position and participated in the crime, and then committed additional post-event acts to conceal his culpability." However, the court stated the reasons for its sentencing: "We took into account that former Prime Minister Han devoted approximately 50 years to public service and contributed to the nation, and that he did not conspire in advance or actively participate in the insurrection acts."
