Han Duck-soo, involved in a key role in rebellion, sentenced in first trial (PG) [Yonhap News] 

Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, indicted for involvement in a key role in a rebellion, has been sentenced to a heavy penalty in the first trial and taken into custody.

The Criminal Division 33 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Lee Jin-kwan) sentenced former Prime Minister Han to 23 years in prison on the 21st. This is 8 years longer than the 15-year sentence sought by Cho Eun-seok, the special prosecutor's team for the rebellion. The court immediately took Han into custody, citing concerns of evidence tampering.

At the beginning of the sentencing, the court stated, "The act of proclaiming martial law on December 3rd, issuing unconstitutional and illegal decrees based on it, and mobilizing military and police personnel to occupy and control access to the National Assembly and the National Election Commission constitutes rebellion as defined by Article 87 of the Criminal Act."

Throughout the remainder of the sentencing, the December 3rd emergency martial law incident was explicitly referred to as the "December 3rd Rebellion."

The court found most of the charges against former Prime Minister Han guilty.

Specifically, the court ruled that actions such as creating the appearance that the proclamation of martial law was deliberated by cabinet members, attempting to obtain signatures from cabinet members on related documents after the proclamation, and discussing plans with former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min to block major institutions and cut off power and water to media outlets constituted involvement in a key role in the rebellion.

The charges of fabricating official documents and violating the Presidential Records Act, related to signing and then discarding a post-proclamation decree prepared by former Presidential Office Secretary Kang Eui-gu to supplement the legal defects of the initial martial law proclamation after its lifting, were also found guilty. This included signatures from former President Yoon Suk-yeol and former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun.

The charge of perjury for testifying as a witness during the Constitutional Court's presidential impeachment trial last February, stating that he was unaware of the martial law proclamation, was also found guilty.

However, the court found him not guilty of calling the then-ruling party's floor leader Choo Kyung-ho after the proclamation of emergency martial law to confirm the situation in the National Assembly and check whether to notify the Assembly, and for delaying the deliberation of this matter by the Cabinet after the lifting of martial law. He was also found not guilty of using the fabricated document of the "post-proclamation martial law decree" as an official document.

After explaining its verdict on each charge, the court spent a considerable amount of time highlighting the unconstitutionality of the December 3rd emergency martial law.

The court stated, "The December 3rd Rebellion was carried out by then-President Yoon Suk-yeol, an elected leader of the people, and his followers, and in nature, it corresponds to a 'rebellion from above'," adding, "This type of rebellion is also called a 'palace coup'."

It continued, "The degree of unconstitutionality of the December 3rd Rebellion cannot be compared to rebellions from below," pointing out that "it shakes the very foundation of the people's belief in democracy and the rule of law, as an elected leader of the people disregards the Constitution and laws and commits acts of rebellion."

Furthermore, it stated, "Although there were no fatalities during the December 3rd Rebellion and the act of rebellion itself ended within a few hours, this was due to the courage of the people who defended the National Assembly by confronting armed martial law troops with their bare bodies."

The court added, "This was also due to the efforts of some politicians who quickly entered the National Assembly based on popular resistance and demanded the lifting of emergency martial law, and the actions of some soldiers and police officers who resisted illegal orders and commands, or participated passively even when compelled to obey, by recalling the dark memories of rebellions in the history of the Republic of Korea. It was certainly not due to the participants of the December 3rd Rebellion," it pointed out.

The judge paused for a moment, his voice seemingly choked up while speaking of "public courage."

Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, charged with aiding and abetting the rebellion leader, attends the first trial sentencing at the Seoul Central District Court on the 21st. [Yonhap News]

The court stated that severe punishment was inevitable considering Han's position and responsibility as the "second-in-command" in state affairs.

The court reprimanded, "As Prime Minister, the defendant was indirectly entrusted with democratic legitimacy and responsibility, and therefore had an obligation to comply with the Constitution and laws and make every effort to protect and realize the Constitution. Nevertheless, the defendant ultimately turned away from these duties and responsibilities with the thought that the December 3rd Rebellion might succeed, and chose to participate as a member."

It continued to criticize, "Due to these actions, the Republic of Korea could have retrogressed into a dark past where fundamental human rights and the basic order of liberal democracy were violated, and could have been trapped in dictatorship for a long period, causing irreparable loss and suffering to the people."

Furthermore, it criticized, "Instead of revealing the truth of the December 3rd Rebellion and taking appropriate responsibility as Prime Minister, the defendant concealed the documents related to the emergency martial law for his own safety afterwards, fabricated and discarded official documents to make the proclamation of emergency martial law appear to have been conducted through proper procedures, and perjured himself before the Constitutional Court."

After the sentencing, the court conducted a separate hearing to determine whether to take him into custody and decided to do so, citing "concerns of evidence tampering."

This marks the first time in the nation's constitutional history that a former Prime Minister has been taken into custody in court.

The special prosecutor's team, which had initially indicted him for aiding and abetting the rebellion leader, amended the indictment to include the charge of involvement in a key role in the rebellion, at the request of the court to selectively merge the charges during the trial.

The crime of rebellion categorizes individuals as leader, key role participant, or subordinate based on their role. It is a crime that requires accomplices, meaning it cannot be committed by a single person. Therefore, the court ruled that the general provision on aiding and abetting in the Criminal Act, which presupposes optional accomplices (crimes that can be committed by one person but are carried out by two or more), could not be applied. In other words, the court judged that the charges should be applied according to the specific elements of the crime of rebellion, rather than the general provisions on accomplices in the Criminal Code, and that he should be punished as a principal offender involved in a key role in the rebellion, not as an accessory to the leader.