Listen to the article
South Korean Court Sentences Former PM to 23 Years in Historic Martial Law Case
A South Korean court delivered a landmark ruling Wednesday, sentencing former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to 23 years in prison for his role in the ill-fated imposition of martial law by ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol in December 2024. The Seoul Central District Court determined that Yoon’s declaration of martial law constituted an act of rebellion, setting a significant precedent for upcoming cases against the former president and other officials.
Han, 76, becomes the first Yoon administration official convicted on rebellion charges related to the martial law crisis that ultimately led to Yoon’s impeachment and removal from office. The veteran bureaucrat served as one of three caretaker leaders during the political turmoil.
“Because of the defendant’s action, the Republic of Korea could have returned to a dark past when the basic rights of the people and the liberal democratic order were trampled upon, becoming trapped in the quagmire of dictatorships for an extended period,” Judge Lee Jin-gwan stated during the televised verdict.
The court ruled that Han played a critical role in the rebellion by attempting to legitimize the martial law decree through a Cabinet Council meeting. He was also convicted of falsifying the proclamation, destroying evidence, and perjury. The 23-year sentence exceeded prosecutors’ recommendation of 15 years.
Rebellion represents one of the most serious criminal charges in South Korea’s legal system. The independent counsel has requested the death penalty for former President Yoon, who faces trial on February 19 for allegedly masterminding the rebellion. Yoon has been jailed for months and faces eight criminal cases, including the rebellion charges.
The court characterized Yoon’s deployment of troops and police to the National Assembly and election offices as “a riot” or “a self-coup” intended to undermine constitutional order and destabilize the country. In his martial law declaration, Yoon had referred to the opposition-controlled assembly as “a den of criminals” and vowed to eliminate “shameless North Korea followers and anti-state forces.”
Han, who has maintained that he opposed Yoon’s martial law plan, has the option to appeal the verdict. The court rejected his defense, stating that as prime minister—the second-highest position in South Korea’s government—Han neglected his constitutional responsibilities by participating in Yoon’s rebellion, believing it might succeed.
Han’s political career spans four decades of public service. He previously served as prime minister under liberal President Roh Moo-hyun from 2007 to 2008 before being appointed by Yoon. Following Yoon’s impeachment in December 2024, Han briefly became acting president but was himself impeached after disputes with opposition lawmakers over filling vacant seats at the Constitutional Court.
Though later reinstated by the Constitutional Court, Han resigned as acting president after Yoon’s formal dismissal in April, launching an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in the subsequent snap election. That election was ultimately won by Lee Jae Myung, former leader of the main liberal opposition Democratic Party.
The martial law crisis, while short-lived, evoked memories of South Korea’s authoritarian past under military dictatorships that the country hadn’t experienced since the 1980s. Despite Yoon’s deployment of troops and police, they did not aggressively control the National Assembly as thousands of protesters gathered. Lawmakers ultimately managed to convene and vote down Yoon’s decree.
Though major violence was avoided, the political upheaval created a power vacuum that damaged South Korea’s international reputation and destabilized diplomatic relations and financial markets.
In addition to Han and Yoon, several other high-ranking officials face rebellion charges, including Yoon’s defense, safety, and justice ministers, intelligence and police chiefs, and top military commanders involved in implementing martial law.
The case represents a watershed moment in South Korea’s democratic history, reaffirming civilian control over the military and establishing significant legal precedent for accountability in cases of executive overreach.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
This case highlights the importance of the rule of law and checks on executive power, even in established democracies. Martial law should never be a tool for political agendas. Curious to see if this sets a precedent for future abuse of power cases.
Absolutely. The separation of powers and independent judiciary are vital safeguards against authoritarian tendencies, no matter who is in power. Hopefully this ruling deters future leaders from similar undemocratic actions.
While the former PM’s actions were clearly undemocratic, a 23-year sentence seems very harsh. I hope the judicial process was fair and impartial. Maintaining the integrity of democratic institutions is crucial, but overly punitive measures could also backfire.
That’s a fair perspective. The severity of the sentence raises questions about whether it was proportional to the offense. Striking the right balance between accountability and preserving the rule of law is delicate.
This case sends a strong message about the consequences of undermining democracy, even at the highest levels of government. However, the lengthy prison term raises concerns about potential political motivations. Transparency around the legal proceedings would help build public trust.
Upholding the democratic process and protecting civil liberties is paramount, even when it means prosecuting former officials. This ruling demonstrates that no one is above the law. It will be interesting to see if it sets a precedent for future abuse of power cases.
Fascinating case that shows the fragility of democracy. Holding former officials accountable for abuse of power is crucial, though 23 years seems like a harsh sentence. I wonder what mitigating factors the court considered.
You raise a good point. The sentence does seem quite severe, even for such a serious offense against democratic norms. The court’s reasoning would be interesting to understand in more detail.