Why Lee Sang-min and Han Duck-soo received such different sentences in S. Korea insurrection cases
Sign up now: Get insights on Asia's fast-moving developments
South Korea's former interior minister Lee Sang-min (left) and former prime minister Han Duck-soo (right) received different sentences for the same charge.
PHOTOS: EPA, AFP
SEOUL – South Korea’s former interior minister Lee Sang-min nodded during his sentencing
Moments earlier, the court had sentenced Lee to seven years in prison for playing what it described as a “key role” in an insurrection and committing perjury. He was acquitted of the abuse of power charge.
Lee, who maintained a largely blank expression throughout the hearing, showed a faint smile while speaking with his attorneys after the verdict was delivered.
The subdued reaction stood in stark contrast to scenes witnessed just weeks earlier.
On Jan 21, former prime minister Han Duck-soo stood silently as the court handed down a 23-year prison sentence on the same charge
When the judge read Han’s sentence, a ripple of gasps spread across the courtroom. Han remained motionless even as the judge spoke to him, his expression unchanged as the magnitude of the ruling appeared to settle in.
The special counsel had sought 15-year prison terms for both Lee and Han.
In both cases, the courts recognised former president Yoon Suk Yeol’s failed martial law declaration as an act of insurrection.
The judges ruled that neither defendant had made meaningful efforts to dissuade Yoon from declaring martial law and that both committed perjury – actions the courts said undermined democratic principles.
However, the two former Cabinet members received strikingly different sentences. Han was handed a punishment far exceeding the prosecution’s request, while Lee received a prison term that was less than a third as long.
‘Key role in insurrection’ – but to what extent?
A key factor behind the sentencing disparity lies in the differing institutional responsibilities of a prime minister and an interior minister.
In Han’s ruling, the court devoted considerable attention to outlining the prime minister’s constitutional and procedural duties.
“As the deputy chair of Cabinet meetings, the prime minister must assist the president in running the meeting and facilitate free speech and debate among participants,” the judge said.
Under South Korean law, a martial law declaration requires the prime minister to convey a defence minister’s recommendation to the president, followed by deliberation at a Cabinet meeting.
The court concluded that Han, as the institutional mediator between the defence minister and the president, bore greater responsibility to ensure proper deliberation, and ultimately to prevent the declaration.
By contrast, the ruling on Feb 12 did not elaborate in similar detail on the duties expected of an interior minister.
Degree of involvement
Legal observers say the courts’ assessments of each defendant’s specific actions also influenced sentencing.
While Lee was found to have instructed the National Fire Agency commissioner to cooperate with orders to cut electricity and water to media outlets, the court did not identify broader concrete actions directly tied to the insurrection.
Han, however, was found to have engaged more actively.
The court recognised that Han collected signatures from Cabinet members to create the appearance of formal deliberation and later damaged the cover page of the martial law declaration document after its revocation.
Analysts say these distinctions likely contributed to Han receiving a heavier sentence.
Diverging views on precedent
The rulings also revealed differing judicial interpretations regarding the application of past insurrection precedents.
In Han’s case, the court characterised the incident as “insurrection from the top” and a “self-coup”, distinguishing it from earlier cases.
“The Dec 3 insurrection, as an example of insurrection from top, cannot be compared with insurrection from below in terms of the degree of its danger,” said Judge Lee Jin-gwan, who was the sitting judge during Han’s sentencing.
“This is because, above all, when a democratically elected holder of power disregards and violates the Constitution and laws by engaging in acts of insurrection, it fundamentally shakes the people’s faith in democracy and the rule of law.”
As a result, Han’s sentence exceeded even the first-instance ruling handed down against former president Roh Tae-woo for aiding strongman Chun Doo-hwan’s 1979 coup d’etat.
Roh and Chun, both military generals at the time, led a successful coup following the assassination of former president Park Chung-hee in 1979.
The two were later brought to trial in 1996 after South Korea’s democratisation, with Roh receiving a first-instance sentence of 22 years and six months in prison.
Lee’s sentence, meanwhile, aligned more closely with penalties imposed on key figures involved in the 1979 military coup.
Other military officials who played a “key role” in Chun’s coup were handed sentences ranging between four and 10 years. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK
