Ex-PM Han Duck-soo sentenced to 23 years in prison in martial law case

Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo attends his sentencing hearing at the Seoul Central District Court in southern Seoul, Wednesday. Yonhap

A Seoul court sentenced former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to 23 years in prison on Wednesday over his involvement in former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law on Dec. 3, 2024, finding Han guilty of aiding an insurrection and playing a central role in its execution.

The ruling marked the judiciary’s first explicit determination on whether the martial law declaration constituted an act of insurrection. The decision is expected to heavily influence the ongoing trial of the former president, for which a verdict on insurrection charges is scheduled for next month.

The jail term for Han was heavier than the special prosecution's earlier request of 15 years. Han was taken into custody immediately following the ruling.

“The declaration of martial law was issued with the purpose of undermining the constitutional order, and constituted an act of insurrection,” the Seoul Central District Court said.

It added that Han, as the country’s second-highest-ranking official, failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the declaration and instead became involved in procedures to make it appear legal.

The court cited his role in convening Cabinet discussions and his involvement in handling a martial law decree prepared after the declaration, saying the move amounted to participating in “an essential task in carrying out the insurrection.”

The former prime minister's sentencing hearing was broadcast live, reflecting the case’s public significance.

Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo attends his sentencing hearing at the Seoul Central District Court, Seoul, Wednesday. Courtesy of Seoul Central District Court

It marked the first case in which a former Cabinet member faced a judicial ruling over the incident, drawing close attention to how the court would assess the legality of the declaration itself.

Prosecutors argued that Han played a central role in giving procedural legitimacy to what they described as an unlawful declaration of martial law. The special prosecution team said Han was aware of the plan and failed to take meaningful steps to stop it, instead becoming involved in Cabinet-level processes that facilitated its implementation.

They argued that Han, as prime minister, had a constitutional obligation to restrain the president’s arbitrary use of emergency powers. They placed particular emphasis on his involvement in handling a decree prepared after the declaration, which was intended to address procedural defects in the original order. The document was later discarded.

The court also found that he consented to measures such as cutting power and water supplies to media outlets, acts the court said amounted to performing a key operational role in the insurrection.

Han rejected the prosecution’s claims, maintaining that he neither supported nor assisted the martial law imposition. In his final statement to the court, Han said he had “never agreed with martial law and never intended to aid it,” adding that while he attempted to persuade the president to reconsider the decision alongside other Cabinet members, “there was no practical way to stop it.” He has consistently denied playing any role in its imposition.

The court, however, rejected these claims, citing evidence that Han did not intervene to block the measures and instead allowed them to proceed.

The ruling is widely seen as a key reference point for the court’s upcoming judgment on Yoon, who faces charges of leading the insurrection. While a separate court has previously acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the martial law declaration, it stopped short of determining whether the act constituted insurrection.