On the afternoon of February 12, 2026, the eyes of South Korea turned to Courtroom 508 at the Seoul Central District Court, where former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min faced judgment for his role during the December 3 emergency martial law. The sentencing hearing, scheduled for 2:00 PM, was broadcast live on national television, underscoring the gravity and public interest surrounding the case.
Lee Sang-min, who had served as the government’s chief overseer of emergency powers, was at the center of a storm that began in August 2025 when he was arrested and indicted. The charges were serious: participation in important tasks of rebellion, abuse of authority, and perjury. At the heart of the allegations was Lee’s role in ordering power and water cuts to major media outlets—including Hankyoreh—as a means of controlling information during the controversial martial law declared by then-President Yoon Seok-yeol.
The trial itself was anything but routine. According to YTN, the special prosecution had pushed for a 15-year prison sentence, arguing that Lee, a former judge, was fully aware of the illegality of the martial law and the severity of his actions. The prosecution’s case painted a vivid picture: Lee allegedly received a document containing explicit orders for power and water cuts from President Yoon just before martial law was declared. He then relayed these instructions to the heads of the police and fire agencies, setting in motion a chain of events that would lead to allegations of rebellion and media suppression.
Evidence presented during the trial included CCTV footage from the President’s office. As reported by YTN, the footage showed Lee lingering in the office for over 30 minutes, using his phone to search for terms like “Constitution” and “Government Organization Act.” The prosecution emphasized Lee’s apparent deference to President Yoon—nodding at instructions, repeatedly taking out and reading documents from his inner jacket pocket, and later meeting privately with then-Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, where they were seen sharing documents and even laughing together. The prosecution argued that these documents were the very orders for power and water cuts, and that Lee’s actions demonstrated his intent to carry out the President’s directives without question.
But Lee’s defense told a different story. He denied the charges, claiming that while he may have seen the controversial document, his subsequent calls to agency chiefs were motivated by concern, not conspiracy. He insisted that the document he was seen handling in the CCTV footage was merely his schedule, not an order for media suppression. Regarding the private meeting with Han Duck-soo, Lee maintained that nothing untoward was discussed, and that the prosecution’s interpretation of the footage was speculative at best.
Yet, the context of the case was shaped by more than just Lee’s actions. The December 3 martial law, now widely referred to as the “12·3 Rebellion,” had already been labeled as such by the court in the related trial of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. That court found that the deployment of military forces to block the National Assembly and the National Election Commission, as well as warrantless searches, constituted a clear violation of constitutional order and an outright rebellion. The implications for Lee’s trial were clear: if the martial law itself was illegal, then those who enabled its most egregious actions would face serious consequences.
The trial process was lengthy and exhaustive. Over the course of six months, there were two preparatory hearings and fourteen substantive hearings, as detailed by YTN. The prosecution meticulously laid out its case, while Lee’s legal team countered every point, challenging the credibility of the evidence and the interpretation of Lee’s intent. The live broadcast of the sentencing underscored the national importance of the proceedings, with the public eager for resolution after months of speculation and debate.
On the day of the verdict, there was a brief delay. According to KBS, the hearing, initially set for 2:00 PM, began about 17 minutes late due to the delayed arrival of Lee’s transport vehicle. The tension in the courtroom was palpable as Judge Ryu Kyung-jin took the bench to deliver the decision.
The outcome was significant, if not as severe as the prosecution had hoped. The court sentenced Lee Sang-min to seven years in prison, finding him partially guilty of participating in important tasks of rebellion and perjury, but acquitting him of abuse of authority. Judge Ryu Kyung-jin’s ruling acknowledged that Lee had, in fact, relayed the orders for power and water cuts to media outlets via the Fire Agency, and that his false testimony during the impeachment trial of former President Yoon Seok-yeol in February 2025—where he denied receiving or transmitting such orders—constituted perjury.
However, the court found insufficient evidence to convict Lee of abuse of authority, a charge that would have hinged on a broader interpretation of his discretionary powers as minister. This nuance in the verdict reflected the complicated nature of the case, where questions of intent, legality, and executive responsibility were hotly contested by both sides.
The prosecution, for its part, had argued that Lee’s legal background as a former judge made him especially culpable, as he should have recognized the illegality of the martial law and the gravity of suppressing the press through power and water cuts. They contended that such actions were not only illegal but a direct attack on democratic institutions. “Lee Sang-min played a crucial role in the illegal martial law and the suppression of the media, fully aware of the consequences,” the prosecution asserted, as reported by YTN.
Lee’s defense, meanwhile, maintained his innocence throughout, insisting that he had not intended to participate in any illegal scheme and that his actions were misinterpreted. “I only saw the document by chance and called out of concern, not to relay illegal orders,” Lee stated in his own defense, according to YTN.
The trial also raised broader questions about the limits of executive power and the mechanisms for holding high-ranking officials accountable in times of crisis. The use of live broadcasting for the sentencing reflected a commitment to transparency, but also highlighted the intense scrutiny faced by all parties involved.
As the dust settles, the verdict against Lee Sang-min stands as a stark reminder of the enduring tension between national security and democratic freedoms. The case will likely shape public discourse and legal precedent for years to come, as South Korea continues to grapple with the legacy of the December 3 martial law and the responsibilities of those who served at its highest levels.