Former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min's Sentence Increased to Nine Years in Martial Law Case

In a significant ruling, the Seoul High Court has handed down a harsher sentence to former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min, increasing his prison term to nine years. This decision underscores the gravity with which the judiciary views his actions during a period of political turmoil, particularly his role concerning the imposition of martial law.

“

It is extremely difficult to restore the constitutional order once it has been overthrown by violence through rebellion, and the price our society would have to pay would be unimaginably immense.

The appellate court's judgment focused on Lee's conduct as the head of the Interior Ministry and a close confidant of then-President Yoon Suk-yeol. The court emphasized that, in his capacity, Lee was responsible for advising the President on matters of martial law, including its declaration or repeal. Instead of upholding constitutional order, the court found that Lee actively participated in duties related to the illegal martial law, even issuing unlawful directives, such as cutting power and water to specific media outlets.

“

The defendant, as the head of the Interior Ministry at the time, was one of the two individuals who could advise the president on the declaration or repeal of martial law, and thus had to accurately grasp the conditions for martial law and assist the president.

Furthermore, the court took a dim view of Lee's demeanor following the events. His testimony during the impeachment trial of Yoon Suk-yeol was deemed perjurious, aimed at concealing the truth of the rebellion. The court noted that Lee consistently evaded responsibility and showed no signs of remorse, which were considered significant aggravating factors in sentencing. This lack of contrition, coupled with his alleged complicity in a rebellion, led to the increased sentence.

“

Despite being in charge of public safety and disaster management, he issued an illegal order to cooperate with the power and water cutoff of specific media outlets, and the degree of guilt and criticism must be viewed very heavily.

The ruling reflects a strong stance against those who allegedly abused their power during a critical juncture in the nation's political history. The Hankyoreh reports on these proceedings to ensure transparency and hold public officials accountable, providing context on how such events are perceived within South Korea, where the memory of past authoritarian actions remains a sensitive issue. The court's decision highlights the deep concern over the potential collapse of constitutional order and the immense societal cost that such events can incur.

“

The perjury committed by the defendant is also not a minor illegality, as it was an active perjury made after waiving the right to refuse testimony to conceal the substantive truth of the rebellion.