Former Minister Lee Sang-min attending court [Photo provided by Joint Press Corps] 

Lee Sang-min, former Minister of the Interior and Safety, who was indicted for allegedly participating in sedition by relaying orders to cut off electricity and water to media companies during the state of emergency on December 3, has been sentenced to nine years in prison in the second trial.

The Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Judge Yoon Sung-sik), which specializes in sedition cases at the Seoul High Court, sentenced the former minister to nine years in prison on December 12 for charges including engaging in important tasks for sedition and perjury. This is an increase of two years from the seven-year sentence in the first trial.

The appellate court, like the first court, found most of the former minister's charges to be guilty and increased the sentence, deeming the first trial's sentence too lenient for the extent of his guilt.

The appellate court found former Minister Lee guilty of relaying instructions to the then-Fire Commissioner, such as "If there's a contact from the police, cooperate and take appropriate measures," after receiving orders from former President Yoon Suk-yeol on December 3, 2024, to blockade key institutions like the National Assembly and to cut off electricity and water to media companies (charges of engaging in important tasks for sedition).

The defense for former Minister Lee argued that he did not receive the document containing the orders to cut off electricity and water and that he only asked the Fire Commissioner over the phone if there had been a request for such action, without issuing direct orders. However, these arguments were not accepted.

His claims that the state of emergency was unlawful or that he was unaware of former President Yoon's intent to subvert the constitution were also rejected.

The court stated, "An ordinary person with a sense of justice would have been fully aware of the unconstitutionality and illegality of this case," and pointed out, "The claim that he had no comprehensive awareness of sedition is absolutely unacceptable."

[Graphic] First and second trial rulings by charge for former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min [Yonhap News] 

The appellate court also largely found former Minister Lee guilty of perjury during the impeachment trial proceedings of former President Yoon Suk-yeol in February of last year.

Specifically, his statements that he did not receive the document containing the orders to cut off electricity and water from former President Yoon and that he did not issue cooperation orders to the Fire Commissioner were deemed false testimonies.

However, his testimony that he did not witness former President Yoon handing over documents related to the state of emergency to former Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok was ruled not guilty, similar to the first trial.

The appellate court also ruled not guilty, as in the first trial, the charge of abuse of power for causing former Fire Commissioner Huh Seok-gon to perform duties that were not incumbent upon him, such as relaying orders to cut off electricity and water to media companies, thereby preparing for immediate response to police requests.

The reasoning was that it was difficult to consider that fire stations were prepared for immediate response to police requests regarding the cutoff of electricity and water to media companies, and it was also difficult to consider that the Fire Commissioner had instructed the Seoul Fire and Disaster Headquarters to cooperate with the cutoff.

Regarding the sentencing, the appellate court pointed out, "The measure to cut off electricity and water, as ordered by the defendant, would not only physically make reporting critical of the state of emergency impossible but also pose a grave threat to the lives and physical safety of citizens working there," adding, "This is an illegal act that cannot be permitted even under a lawful state of emergency."

It continued, "Given that the defendant was in a position responsible for the safety of citizens and disaster management at the time of the declaration of the state of emergency, the guilt and the degree of blame are extremely heavy."

The court also reprimanded, "The defendant was in a position to accurately understand the conditions for the state of emergency and to assist the President. He was well aware that the declaration of the state of emergency at the time was unlawful. Nevertheless, his consistent attitude of appearing to condone the declaration of the state of emergency or trying to evade legal responsibility is highly blameworthy."

Furthermore, it explained, "Even though he had the status, authority, and time to decide whether to comply with the orders for cooperation in cutting off electricity and water, he ultimately chose to obey the unconstitutional and illegal orders at the last moment. The illegality of his act of actively perjuring himself to conceal the substantive truth of his involvement in important sedition tasks can by no means be considered minor."

The court cited favorable sentencing factors such as the fact that the former minister did not pre-plan or prepare for the state of emergency, did not proactively plan the cutoff of electricity and water, had limited involvement in violent acts of sedition, and had no prior criminal record.

However, it judged that "given the defendant's career and the nature of the crime, the absence of a prior criminal record should be considered restrictively."