Former Justice Minister gets 25 years for role in 2024 coup attempt

A South Korean court has sentenced former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae to 25 years in prison for his involvement in the December 3rd emergency martial law incident in 2024. The Seoul Central District Court found Park guilty of charges including participating in rebellion and abuse of power, handing down a sentence harsher than the 20 years sought by the prosecution.

The court determined that Park actively participated in the coup attempt. This included convening a meeting of Justice Ministry officials on the day of the emergency decree to discuss dispatching prosecutors to the joint investigation headquarters. He also allegedly inspected correctional facilities to assess their capacity for detaining political opponents and ordered subordinates to draft documents justifying the martial law, which were later circulated within the Justice Ministry.

In its ruling, the court stated, "The defendant, believing the rebellion might succeed, ultimately abandoned his duty to uphold the constitution and chose to participate instead." Park was the only cabinet member indicted for the coup who had been tried without detention, as judges had twice rejected arrest warrants, accepting his argument that he was unaware of the unconstitutionality of the emergency measures at the time.

This verdict concludes the first-instance trials for all cabinet members indicted for their alleged roles in the 12.3 emergency martial law. Other high-profile figures received significant sentences: former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was initially sentenced to 23 years, later reduced to 15 years on appeal. Former Interior and Safety Minister Lee Sang-min's sentence increased from 7 years in the first trial to 9 years on appeal. Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun received a 30-year sentence in his first trial.

The article criticizes the defendants for allegedly providing false testimony in court and before the National Assembly, and for claiming memory loss even when presented with objective evidence like CCTV footage. It concludes by calling for severe punishment to prevent future instances of such misconduct by high-ranking public officials.

“

The defendant, believing the rebellion might succeed, ultimately abandoned his duty to uphold the constitution and chose to participate instead.