On May 7, 2026, the Seoul High Court handed down a 15-year prison sentence to former Prime Minister Han Deok-su, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal reckoning over South Korea’s December 3, 2024, martial law. The ruling, which was broadcast live to a tense and divided nation, reduced Han’s original 23-year sentence by eight years, while still holding him responsible for participating in what the court deemed an “important mission of rebellion.”
The appellate verdict comes after months of intense legal battles and public debate over Han’s role during one of the most controversial episodes in recent Korean political history. As reported by Donga Ilbo and Law Times, Han, who served as the country’s second-in-command under then-President Yoon Suk-yeol, was accused of helping legitimize the martial law declaration—an act that prosecutors and the first trial court both labeled as a form of rebellion against the state.
The first trial, held in January, had been particularly severe. The presiding judge described Han’s conduct as a “betrayal” of his constitutional duties, emphasizing that Han, as Prime Minister, had a unique responsibility to safeguard democratic processes. The court found him guilty on six major charges: participating in the rebellion, forging false official documents, violating the Presidential Records Management Act, damaging official documents, and committing perjury during the Constitutional Court’s impeachment trial of President Yoon. Notably, the 23-year sentence imposed by the first court exceeded the prosecution’s own request of 15 years, drawing widespread attention and sparking debate over judicial discretion and proportionality.
Yet, as the appeals process unfolded, the legal picture became more nuanced. According to Yonhap News TV, the Seoul High Court’s special rebellion division—presided over by Judge Lee Seung-chul—revisited several of the most contentious charges. The appellate judges overturned some of the earlier guilty verdicts, particularly those related to Han’s alleged efforts to create the appearance of cabinet deliberation and his supposed orchestration of cabinet signatures on martial law documents. The court found that the evidence did not prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Han had actively sought to manufacture legitimacy for the martial law declaration in this manner.
Similarly, some of the perjury charges stemming from Han’s testimony during President Yoon’s impeachment trial were set aside. The judges concluded that Han’s statements—specifically his denial of having seen or received martial law documents—could not be definitively proven false, given the ambiguity of the questioning and Han’s own claims of memory loss. “It cannot be concluded that the defendant’s statements were objectively false or deliberately misleading,” the appellate court stated, echoing the reasoning reported by Law Times.
Nonetheless, the court was unsparing in its assessment of Han’s overall conduct. The judges found Han guilty of participating in the rebellion by recommending the convening of a cabinet meeting, thereby granting procedural legitimacy to the martial law. They also upheld convictions for forging false official documents, violating laws governing presidential records, and damaging official documents. “The defendant, as Prime Minister, abandoned the grave responsibilities that came with his authority and position,” the court declared. “Instead of acting to prevent the imposition of martial law, he aided in legitimizing it and subsequently engaged in actions to conceal his culpability.”
Han’s defense had consistently argued that his actions were aimed at persuading President Yoon to reverse course, not to support the martial law. He maintained that gathering cabinet members was meant to block the declaration, not facilitate it. However, as Donga Ilbo reported, the court was unconvinced, citing Han’s repeated claims of memory loss and his admission that he had destroyed or shredded most related documents. The judges called this “an evasion of responsibility” and noted that Han’s explanations were “difficult to accept.”
Yet, the High Court also acknowledged Han’s decades of public service, his decorated career, and the absence of evidence that he had been a principal conspirator or organizer of the rebellion. The appellate ruling pointed out that Han had not actively plotted or led the events; rather, he had “joined the side of legitimizing the rebellion by procedural means.” The court further noted that, after the National Assembly passed a resolution demanding the lifting of martial law, Han convened and chaired a cabinet meeting to end the emergency—resulting in the martial law’s termination just six hours after its declaration. This, the judges said, was a mitigating factor in determining his sentence.
The reduction in Han’s sentence—from 23 years to 15—reflects this complex balance of guilt, responsibility, and mitigating circumstances. Legal experts, as cited by Law Times, noted that such a substantial decrease is rare, especially in high-profile cases involving national security and constitutional order. The prosecution, for its part, had requested that the original 23-year sentence be upheld, arguing that Han’s actions had fundamentally undermined the nation’s democratic foundations.
The appellate court’s decision also set important legal precedents on the interpretation of “omission” crimes—those for which the prosecution had not formally indicted Han, but which the first trial court had nonetheless considered. The High Court ruled that a court cannot convict a defendant on charges that were not included in the prosecution’s indictment, reinforcing the principle of “no punishment without indictment.” This clarification is expected to influence ongoing and future trials related to the December 2024 martial law events.
Han’s sentencing is just one chapter in a broader legal saga. As Yonhap News TV detailed, other key officials—including former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae and former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min—are facing their own trials for their roles in the martial law declaration and its aftermath. The courts are also weighing cases against lawmakers accused of obstructing the National Assembly’s efforts to lift martial law, as well as against intelligence officials for alleged dereliction of duty.
Throughout the sentencing, Han remained composed, standing as the verdict was read and bowing respectfully to the court. Observers described the moment as somber, with Han’s demeanor reflecting the gravity of the judgment and the weight of recent Korean history. The decision, broadcast live from courtroom 413 of the Seoul High Court, was watched by millions, sparking fresh debate over the boundaries of executive power, the responsibilities of public officials, and the enduring scars of political crisis.
As South Korea continues to grapple with the legacy of the 2024 martial law, Han Deok-su’s case stands as a stark reminder of the profound consequences that can arise when the highest offices of government are swept up in constitutional turmoil.