SEOUL — A South Korean court has sentenced former prime minister Han Duck-soo to 23 years in prison for his role in a failed attempt to impose martial law, ruling that his actions amounted to participation in an insurrection against the constitutional order. The verdict, delivered on January 21, marks one of the most consequential criminal judgments against a senior political figure in South Korea’s democratic history.
The Seoul Central District Court found that Han played a decisive role in facilitating the December 2024 martial law declaration, which prosecutors described as an effort to neutralize democratic institutions and consolidate executive power. The ruling represents the first time a court has formally defined the short-lived martial law attempt as an insurrection under South Korean criminal law.
Court Details and Lengthy Sentence
Han, 76, was convicted on charges including insurrection, abuse of authority, falsification of official documents, and perjury. The court imposed a 23-year prison term, exceeding the 15 years sought by prosecutors, citing the gravity of the threat posed to the constitutional system. In its decision, the court emphasized that the former prime minister was not a passive bystander but an active enabler of the process that allowed martial law to be declared.
Presiding judge Lee Jin-gwan stated that Han had failed in his fundamental duty to defend constitutional governance, instead choosing to lend legitimacy to an unlawful act that risked plunging the country into authoritarian rule.
Role in the Martial Law Attempt
According to the judgment, Han’s key action was convening and endorsing a cabinet meeting designed to provide procedural justification for the martial law order. While the declaration itself lasted only hours, the court found that the intent behind it was to restrict the powers of the National Assembly and the National Election Commission through the deployment of military and police forces.
The ruling characterized the attempt as a “top-down insurrection,” distinguishing it from spontaneous uprisings by noting that it originated within the highest levels of government. Judges concluded that the absence of widespread violence did not diminish the seriousness of the offense, as the plan directly targeted the constitutional framework.
Rejection of the Defense
Han denied orchestrating or supporting an insurrection, arguing that he was acting under extreme political pressure and psychological distress. His legal team maintained that he neither authored the martial law decree nor commanded security forces. The court rejected these arguments, citing documentary evidence, testimony from senior officials, and Han’s own statements following the incident.
In its ruling, the court said Han’s post-facto claims of shock and confusion were inconsistent with his documented involvement in the decision-making process and subsequent efforts to obscure responsibility.
Broader Political and Legal Fallout
The conviction is part of a sweeping legal reckoning stemming from the 2024 crisis. Former president Yoon Suk Yeol, who ordered the martial law declaration, has already been sentenced to five years in prison for obstruction of justice and faces a separate insurrection trial in which prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. A verdict in that case is expected in February.
Legal analysts say the prosecution of both men underscores a determination by South Korea’s judiciary to draw clear limits around executive authority and prevent any return to the country’s authoritarian past.
Historical Significance
Han Duck-soo was a veteran technocrat who served under multiple administrations and briefly acted as interim president following Yoon’s impeachment. His downfall has shocked many in South Korea’s political establishment, where he was long viewed as a stabilizing figure rather than a partisan actor.
Observers note that the case sets a powerful precedent: senior officials who enable unconstitutional actions may face severe criminal consequences, regardless of whether they personally deploy force.
Public Reaction and Democratic Implications
Public response to the verdict has been mixed. Supporters argue that the sentence reinforces the rule of law and affirms that no official is above the constitution. Critics contend that the judiciary risks deepening political polarization by imposing exceptionally harsh penalties.
Despite the debate, there is broad consensus that the martial law episode exposed vulnerabilities in South Korea’s democratic safeguards. As Han prepares to appeal to the Supreme Court, the country continues to grapple with the legacy of a crisis that has reshaped its political and legal landscape.
