Former PM Han Duck-soo's Sentence Cut to 15 Years on Appeal for 1979 Martial Law Role; Rebellion Ruling Upheld

The Seoul High Court's decision to reduce former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo's sentence from 23 to 15 years in the 12.3 emergency martial law case marks a significant development in the ongoing legal scrutiny of actions taken during a turbulent period in South Korean history. While the court upheld the designation of the martial law as an illegal rebellion, its revised interpretation of Han's role has led to a substantial reduction in his penalty.

“

The martial law was unconstitutional and illegal and was declared with the purpose of disrupting the nation's constitution.

This ruling, as reported by Hankyoreh, highlights the complexities of assigning responsibility, particularly concerning the concept of 'omission liability.' The appellate court diverged from the first instance's finding that Han, as the second-highest official, had a duty to actively prevent the martial law declaration and failed to do so. Instead, the appeals court found it difficult to hold him accountable for not actively obstructing the declaration through the State Council, a key point that significantly impacted the sentencing.

The court's decision to acquit Han on charges of perjury during the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial, a reversal from the first trial, further contributed to the reduced sentence. This suggests a nuanced legal evaluation, acknowledging potential ambiguities in Han's actions and statements at the time, particularly his understanding of certain documents.

“

It is difficult to hold him responsible for not actively preventing the declaration of martial law.

Despite the reduced sentence, the court did not shy away from emphasizing Han's significant position as the 'second-in-command' and the gravity of his actions in facilitating the martial law's procedural legitimacy. The sentencing reflects a balancing act, acknowledging his deep involvement while adjusting the legal framework for his specific responsibilities and actions. This case continues to be a critical examination of accountability for past authoritarian actions, with implications for how historical events are legally interpreted and judged in contemporary South Korea.

“

The defendant had a duty to assist in the lawful exercise of the President's authority. Severe punishment is unavoidable.