Special Prosecutor for Insurrection Appeals 15-Year Sentence for Han Ducksoo in Second Trial

Special Prosecutor Cites "Misinterpretation of Law"

The special prosecutor has appealed to the Supreme Court against the appellate court's decision sentencing former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to 15 years in prison for his involvement in major insurrection-related duties.

According to legal sources on May 14, Jo Eun-seok’s special prosecutor team for insurrection submitted a notice of appeal to the Criminal Division 12-1 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges Lee Seung-chul, Cho Jin-gu, and Kim Min-a) the previous day regarding former Prime Minister Han's appellate ruling.

The special prosecutor stated that the grounds for appeal include a misinterpretation of the law and violation of evidentiary rules, objecting to the appellate court’s acquittal of Han on charges of using forged official documents and its decision to find some of the charges “not guilty due to legal reasons.” The term “guilty by reason” refers to cases where a guilty verdict is recorded in the ruling, but the explanation section of the judgment finds the defendant not guilty for that part.

Former Prime Minister Han stands accused of manipulating the procedural legitimacy of the martial law process by proposing to convene a cabinet meeting to create the appearance of deliberation, and attempting to collect signatures from cabinet members after the declaration of martial law, as if the decision had gone through proper cabinet review.

Previously, the first trial found Han guilty of the main charges, stating that he failed to fulfill his duty to notify cabinet members of the meeting and to ensure substantive deliberation, sentencing him to 23 years in prison. However, the appellate court reduced the sentence to 15 years, still recognizing Han’s guilt on the insurrection-related charges. The court overturned the first trial’s interpretation that the act of creating the appearance of cabinet deliberation constituted a crime of omission (a crime established by failing to perform a required act), ruling that the legal requirements were not met and thus rendered a “not guilty due to legal reasons” verdict for that part. Additionally, regarding the discussions about cutting electricity and water to media outlets, the appellate court overturned the first trial’s findings, citing the principle of legality, stating, “The court cannot rule on matters that prosecutors have not indicted.”

Han’s side also submitted an appeal to the court on May 11.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.