Former PM's Sentence Cut in Rebellion Case Sparks Outrage Over Accountability

The appellate court's decision to reduce former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo's sentence from 23 years to 15 years for his involvement in the '12.3 internal rebellion' case has sparked considerable debate and criticism in South Korea. While the court upheld the conviction for his role in convening a cabinet meeting to provide a veneer of legitimacy to an illegal declaration of emergency, the significant reduction in sentence has raised questions about accountability and the perceived severity of his actions.

“

The appellate court's decision to significantly reduce the sentence is difficult to comprehend.

The primary reason cited for the reduced sentence was the appellate court's decision not to recognize the 'duty of omission' charge that was central to the first trial's verdict. The initial ruling had posited that as the Deputy Prime Minister, Han had a legal obligation to ensure the cabinet meeting proceeded with proper deliberation, thereby potentially preventing the illegal state of emergency. However, the appellate court deemed this expectation excessive, suggesting that even a properly convened meeting might not have deterred the President's actions given the control over military and police forces. This legal interpretation, while perhaps technically sound, has been met with public skepticism.

From the perspective of many South Koreans, the former Prime Minister, as the 'second-highest official in state affairs,' bore a significant responsibility to actively resist unconstitutional actions. The idea that he could be absolved of a 'duty of omission' when the nation's constitutional order was at stake is difficult to accept. The narrative often presented in domestic media, such as the Hankyoreh, emphasizes that the ultimate failure to uphold constitutional duties by officials often results in harm to the public, and that such figures should be held to the highest standards. The fact that the rebellion was ultimately thwarted by citizens marching to the National Assembly, rather than by internal governmental action, further fuels this sentiment.

“

If the state councilors who have the duty to uphold the constitution fail to do so, the damage ultimately falls on the public.

Furthermore, the appellate court's inclusion of Han's '50 years of public service' as a mitigating factor for the reduced sentence has been met with particular derision. Critics argue that dedicated public service should entail upholding constitutional duties, especially during critical moments, rather than serving as a reason for leniency when those duties are allegedly neglected. The article points out Han's alleged attempts to evade punishment, including running for president, as further reasons why such leniency is unwarranted. This case highlights a recurring tension in South Korean society: the perceived gap between the legal accountability of high-ranking officials and the public's expectation of unwavering commitment to democratic principles and constitutional integrity.

“

Recognizing his 50 years of public service as a reason for sentence reduction is absurd.