Han Duck-soo Sentenced to 23 Years as Seoul Court Rules Yoon's Martial Law Attempt Was an Insurrection

A 23 Year Sentence for a Former Prime Minister

Former South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, 76, has been sentenced to 23 years in prison for his role in President Yoon Suk Yeol's failed martial law declaration on December 3, 2024. The Seoul Central District Court's ruling on Wednesday was the first judicial determination that the attempt amounted to an insurrection, making Han the first cabinet minister in Yoon's administration convicted on criminal charges directly connected to the declaration.

Presiding Judge Lee Jin-kwan ordered Han's immediate detention. The sentence exceeded the 15 years requested by prosecutors by eight years, reflecting the court's assessment of Han's responsibilities, his participation in the declaration and his subsequent efforts to conceal evidence. His convictions included engaging in key actions of insurrection, perjury and falsifying official documents.

Han's case places a former prime minister, a veteran of both conservative and progressive administrations, at the center of the legal reckoning over one of South Korea's most serious political crises in decades. Judges concluded that he had the authority and constitutional responsibility to resist an unlawful declaration, yet helped give it the appearance of a legitimate government decision.

The verdict also comes before a separate ruling scheduled for February 19 in Yoon's insurrection trial, in which prosecutors have requested the death penalty. Yoon has already received a five year prison sentence in another case involving obstruction of his arrest and related conduct, and he has appealed that judgment.

Han's lawyer indicated that the defense would challenge the verdict and pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court. The ruling therefore begins another stage of legal proceedings rather than ending the dispute over his conduct. Its immediate importance lies in the court's detailed account of how a senior civilian official helped an elected president act against constitutional institutions.

Why the Court Held Han Responsible

Judge Lee's assessment began with Han's position as the second highest official in South Korea's government. The court found that the prime minister had both a duty to defend the Constitution and practical authority to try to prevent the martial law declaration. It concluded that he neglected those responsibilities and chose to participate because he thought the attempt might succeed.

Lee, the presiding judge, explained the responsibility attached to Han's office and why the court considered his failure to act a serious breach of public trust.

The defendant had a duty as a prime minister indirectly given democratic legitimacy and the responsibility for it to follow the Constitution and laws and make every effort to realize and defend the Constitution. Even so, he neglected this duty and responsibility until the end, thinking the Dec. 3 insurrection might succeed, and chose to take part as a member.

Han's defense presented a different account. He maintained that he privately opposed martial law and was in a state of psychological shock when Yoon announced it. His lawyers portrayed him as an official trying to moderate a determined president while working within the hierarchy of government and the practical limits of his position.

Han, speaking to the court in November, denied supporting the declaration or helping to put it into effect.

I never supported it or tried to help it.

The judges rejected that account, finding that Han was an active participant rather than a passive observer. Their conclusion depended on what he did before the announcement and afterward, including his involvement in the cabinet meeting, his handling of documents and his later efforts to obscure his role.

A Cabinet Meeting Without Meaningful Debate

Han helped organize what the court called the "outward appearance" of a legitimate cabinet meeting to approve an unconstitutional decree. Only six cabinet ministers were summoned in advance to the presidential office. Judges found that Han helped ensure the meeting reached the minimum quorum, the number of participants needed for it to proceed legally, while preventing meaningful deliberation on martial law.

The court treated this as more than an administrative detail. A cabinet discussion should give ministers an opportunity to examine a proposed decision. In this case, judges concluded that the meeting supplied the appearance of proper procedure without a genuine opportunity to challenge the decree.

CCTV footage was damaging to Han's defense. It showed him nodding while Yoon explained the martial law plan and receiving documents, including the official proclamation. The court established that Han knew about the plan hours before Yoon's televised announcement, undermining his claim that he had been caught unaware and was unprepared to respond.

Judges found that Han used that advance notice to help satisfy procedural requirements rather than mobilize opposition or warn colleagues. His conduct at the meeting was central to the finding that he assisted implementation instead of simply remaining present while the president acted.

Lee described the declaration as a "self-coup" by elected leadership. The term describes an attempt by leaders already holding office to use their power against the constitutional system through which they govern. The judge distinguished the events from historical military coups, explaining that an attempt originating inside elected government presented its own dangers.

That reasoning also shaped the punishment. The court rejected sentencing precedents from past military coups and imposed a harsher penalty based on what it regarded as a betrayal of democratic legitimacy. Han's senior office increased his responsibility to resist the declaration rather than providing an excuse for following it.

The December 8 Call and the Cover Up

A recorded telephone call on December 8 became another important part of the case. Han instructed a presidential aide to destroy a backdated martial law document. Backdating means giving a document an earlier date than the date on which it was actually prepared.

Han, the former prime minister, told the aide that he wanted his signature removed from the record of the declaration.

Let's make it as if my signature never existed.

The recording contradicted his portrayal of himself as an opponent of martial law. The court considered it evidence of an active effort to conceal his involvement, rather than an attempt to record principled resistance. Judges also found that he showed no genuine remorse and continued concealing evidence and giving false testimony as proceedings advanced.

Han's convictions extended beyond participation in the insurrection. They included perjury during Yoon's impeachment proceedings, creating false documents and destroying presidential records. Perjury is knowingly giving false testimony in a legal proceeding. The court viewed these offenses as a pattern of obstruction and dishonesty that continued after the declaration had failed.

The judgment examined Han's conduct from the cabinet meeting through his later attempts to distance himself from the events. His constitutional position, assistance with the decree and concealment of evidence were aggravating factors, circumstances that judges considered reasons for a more severe punishment.

Those findings help explain why Lee imposed 23 years instead of the 15 requested by prosecutors. The court concluded that Han's wrongdoing involved both participation in the attempt and a continuing effort to hide it. The sentence addressed that combined conduct rather than treating his actions as a brief failure to speak up.

How the Martial Law Declaration Unfolded

Yoon appeared on television at 10:28 p.m. on December 3, 2024, to announce martial law. The declaration introduced extraordinary emergency measures that suspended normal constitutional protections and authorized military authorities to take control of essential government functions.

Yoon, then South Korea's president, presented the move as action against enemies within the country. He described the opposition controlled National Assembly as "a den of criminals" and vowed to eliminate "shameless North Korea followers and anti-state forces." The language recalled South Korea's authoritarian era and the dictatorship that many citizens believed the country had left behind in the 1980s.

Troops and police officers were deployed to the National Assembly and election offices. The court described their use against democratic institutions as "a riot" or "a self-coup" intended to undermine the constitutional order. Judges regarded the operation as an unlawful attempt to suppress opposition and consolidate presidential power.

Thousands of protesters gathered outside the National Assembly, and lawmakers rushed to the building for an emergency session. Despite the military and police presence, enough legislators entered the chamber to vote down the decree. The National Assembly overturned martial law within hours of Yoon's televised announcement.

No major violence occurred during those confrontations. Many deployed soldiers and police officers refused to aggressively control protesters or block lawmakers, providing another form of resistance to the order. The legislature's action and the restraint of personnel on the ground helped prevent the declaration from taking hold.

The episode exposed a sharp conflict between presidential orders and the institutions responsible for limiting presidential power. The court proceedings have since examined how that conflict developed inside government, who helped the declaration proceed and what officials did after lawmakers stopped it.

From Impeachment to a New Presidency

The National Assembly moved to impeach Yoon after the martial law attempt. Han assumed the role of acting president on December 14, 2024, following confirmation of the impeachment resolution. Impeachment suspended Yoon from exercising presidential duties while the Constitutional Court considered whether to remove him from office.

Han's own period as acting president quickly became contentious. On December 27, the National Assembly unanimously passed an impeachment motion against him, suspending his duties amid allegations concerning his role in the martial law process. The immediate dispute also centered on his refusal to fill vacant seats on the Constitutional Court.

Opposition lawmakers wanted the court's full bench restored while it considered Yoon's removal. They believed filling the vacancies would increase the prospects of his ouster and viewed Han's refusal as an attempt to protect the president under whom he had served.

The Constitutional Court later reinstated Han as acting president. In early April, it formally removed Yoon from office. Han subsequently resigned to seek the presidency in June's snap election, but withdrew after failing to secure the conservative party's nomination. Lee Jae Myung, a former leader of the main liberal opposition Democratic Party, won the election.

The major events stretched from a brief emergency declaration to impeachment, a change of government and criminal proceedings:

• December 3, 2024: Yoon announced martial law at 10:28 p.m.; lawmakers overturned it within hours.
• December 8, 2024: Han made the recorded call about removing his signature from a backdated document.
• December 14, 2024: Han became acting president after Yoon's impeachment.
• December 27, 2024: The National Assembly impeached Han and suspended him from duty.
• Early April 2025: The Constitutional Court removed Yoon from the presidency.
• June 2025: Lee Jae Myung won the snap presidential election after Han withdrew from the race.
• Wednesday, January 21, 2026: Han received a 23 year prison sentence and was immediately detained.
• February 19, 2026: A ruling is scheduled in Yoon's separate insurrection trial.

The crisis created a political power vacuum, damaged South Korea's international image and unsettled its diplomacy and financial markets. Lee's election restored normal constitutional governance, while the prosecutions continued as a means of accountability for the former administration.

A Career Across Political Divides

Han's conviction ended a very different public trajectory from the one associated with his decades of government service. A career diplomat and bureaucrat, he held senior positions under five presidents across conservative and progressive administrations. His reputation rested on technical expertise, administrative experience and an ability to work across partisan divisions.

Han first served as prime minister under liberal President Roh Moo-hyun from 2007 to 2008. His second term began in May 2022 under conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol. Yoon's selection of the experienced technocrat appeared intended to bring stability to the administration.

Han became the longest serving prime minister under a single president in South Korea's democratic history. Across four decades of public service, he established himself as a fixture in government and an official associated more with administration than ideological combat. His conviction for helping an attempt to undermine constitutional government therefore represented a dramatic collapse of the public trust built over that career.

His lawyers relied on that record during the trial. They argued that his conduct should be understood in the context of serving under a president determined to pursue a controversial course of action. They presented his position as constrained by the government hierarchy, even as he tried to moderate Yoon's decisions.

The court reached the opposite conclusion. It found that Han's experience and authority gave him both the obligation and the capacity to resist unconstitutional orders. His long career did not reduce the responsibility attached to his office at the moment of the declaration.

Han had remained free through much of the trial. In August, a judge rejected an arrest warrant, citing "room for legal dispute" over his culpability. Establishing his criminal intent was a central difficulty, given his technocratic background and the unusual circumstances. Wednesday's judgment resolved that issue in the prosecution's favor through findings of active participation and subsequent concealment.

Han's Response and the Appeal

Han responded quietly after sentencing. Wearing a suit and green tie, he spoke to reporters as the court's order placed him in immediate custody.

Han, the newly convicted former prime minister, said he would accept the judge's decision with humility.

I will humbly follow the judge's decision.

His lawyer nevertheless indicated plans to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court. The defense's continuing challenge means that the legal arguments over Han's actions and responsibility will be pursued beyond the trial judgment.

The constitutional importance of the case helps explain the expectation that it will be contested through the highest judicial level. It concerns the duties of a prime minister when presidential instructions conflict with the Constitution, as well as the line between being present during an unlawful decision and helping carry it out.

The sentence also demonstrated the trial court's willingness to impose a punishment greater than the prosecution requested. In a case involving one of the country's most senior former officials, Lee based the additional eight years on the court's assessment of responsibility and aggravating conduct.

Yoon Faces a Separate Insurrection Ruling

Yoon's insurrection trial is scheduled to produce a ruling on February 19. Prosecutors describe him as the mastermind of the martial law declaration and have requested the death penalty. South Korea has not carried out an execution since 1997, but the request conveys the severity with which prosecutors view his alleged attack on the constitutional order.

Yoon has already been sentenced to five years in prison in a separate case involving obstruction of attempts to arrest him. That case also involved allegations that he fabricated the martial law proclamation and denied some cabinet members the right to deliberate on the decree. He has appealed the judgment.

Yoon, the former president, maintains his innocence across the charges. He has called the investigations "frenzied" and accused them of "manipulation" and "distortion." His defense is that the martial law announcement was intended to warn the public about obstruction by a parliament controlled by liberals, rather than impose lasting military rule.

Investigators reached a different conclusion, finding that the move sought to consolidate and prolong his hold on power. The dispute over the declaration's purpose is central to the prosecution of the former president.

Han's verdict gives the remaining proceedings a judicial finding that the December 3 events constituted an insurrection. Its reasoning about a "self-coup" could influence the treatment of similar conduct in other trials. Yoon faces the prospect of an even more severe sentence because prosecutors identify him as the architect of the plan. His punishment in the insurrection case will be decided in his separate proceeding.

Yoon faces eight criminal trials, including allegations of abuse of power and other offenses connected to the declaration and related actions. Their outcomes will determine the extent of his imprisonment, including whether he spends the rest of his life in custody. The proceedings mark a dramatic reversal for a conservative president who entered office promising stability and reform.

The Legal Reckoning Extends Beyond Two Men

Other senior figures from Yoon's administration have also been indicted. They include the defense, safety and justice ministers, the spy chief, the police chief and several senior military commanders. The range of prosecutions reflects investigators' view that the declaration involved a coordinated attempt to subvert constitutional processes rather than isolated actions by a few officials.

Each trial addresses a different part of that alleged operation. Together, the proceedings examine the use of military and police power, the decisions made by cabinet members and the steps taken to conceal or justify the declaration afterward.

Han's conviction is a potential guide for those cases because it addresses both the nature of the December 3 events and the responsibility of an official who helped create procedural legitimacy. The court's reasoning could also influence future interpretations of executive authority, especially the obligations of senior officials confronted with unconstitutional instructions.

The prosecutions continue after the return of an elected president and ordinary constitutional governance. They serve as an accountability process and a reminder of the crisis that interrupted government, diplomacy and markets.

Judicial independence is another central feature of the response. Han's sentence exceeded the prosecution's recommendation, showing that the court made its own assessment even when judging a former prime minister. The broader legal process places decisions about guilt and punishment in courts rather than in retaliation outside the law.

Two Commuters Reflect Different Responses

Public responses to the verdict reflected the political divisions exposed by the martial law crisis. At a train station in Seoul, Kim Su-hyeon, a commuter aged 23, watched the news and expressed approval of the ruling.

Kim, speaking as a young citizen who opposed martial law, said the judgment was acceptable to people who shared that opposition.

This ruling is something that citizens who oppose martial law can fully accept.

For people who regarded the declaration as a threat to democratic government, the punishment brought reassurance that senior officials could be held accountable. Younger South Koreans who grew up entirely under democracy had experienced the announcement as an unexpected return of practices associated with an authoritarian past.

Kim In-sik, a commuter aged 79, expressed a more ambivalent response. His comments weighed Han's possible intentions against the result of his actions.

Kim, an older citizen considering Han's long career, said he was uncertain how to judge the former prime minister's motives.

I don't know whether this elderly man meant to devote himself to the people of South Korea in his own way, but the outcome wasn't good.

That response reflected the difficult contrast between decades of public service and a career ending in conviction rather than an honorable retirement. For some older citizens familiar with earlier political transitions, Han's case also evokes the compromises officials make when political pressure conflicts with constitutional duty.

What the Proceedings Mean for Government

South Korea's handling of the crisis has drawn international attention as a test of democratic resilience in a region with strong authoritarian influences. The martial law attempt exposed vulnerabilities, while its rapid defeat and the subsequent legal proceedings showed the capacity of institutions to respond through constitutional processes.

The verdict draws attention to a practical question for government: how senior officials should react when an elected leader proposes unlawful measures. Possible responses discussed in the aftermath include clearer procedures for cabinet resistance, stronger protection for officials who report wrongdoing and better mechanisms for rapid legislative and judicial action against executive overreach.

Han's case also puts personal responsibility alongside institutional safeguards. The court found that an experienced official had authority to act but chose participation. Training for senior officials could place greater weight on constitutional ethics and the duty to resist illegal orders, whatever their source.

The detailed evidence aired in court has given citizens insight into how an attempt to concentrate power can develop within government and how resistance can take different forms. Lawmakers voting down the decree, troops declining aggressive enforcement and judges examining official conduct each formed part of the response.

The continuing prosecutions may help define limits on executive power and discourage similar actions. Their broader value depends on accountability through legal procedures, respect for due process and independent judicial decisions. South Korea's experience offers other democracies an example of addressing a serious constitutional crisis without replacing legal judgment with chaos or retaliation.

Han's appeal and Yoon's scheduled February 19 ruling are the next major steps identified in the proceedings. The 23 year sentence is already a severe consequence for an official found to have assisted the declaration. Whether the crisis ultimately strengthens democratic institutions will depend on how its legal and governmental lessons are carried into practice.

Key Points

• Han Duck-soo, 76, received 23 years in prison, eight years more than prosecutors requested, and was immediately detained.
• The Seoul Central District Court made the first judicial determination that the December 3, 2024, martial law attempt was an insurrection.
• Judge Lee Jin-kwan found that Han helped create the appearance of a legitimate cabinet meeting while preventing meaningful deliberation.
• CCTV footage and a December 8 recording were central evidence concerning Han's participation and concealment of documents.
• His convictions included insurrection participation, perjury, falsifying documents and destroying presidential records.
• Han held senior posts under five presidents and served as prime minister under Roh Moo-hyun and Yoon Suk Yeol.
• Han's lawyer indicated plans to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court.
• Yoon faces eight criminal trials and has appealed a separate sentence of five years in prison.
• A ruling in Yoon's insurrection case is scheduled for February 19; prosecutors have requested the death penalty.
• Other ministers, security officials and military commanders face related charges, while President Lee Jae Myung governs after the snap election.