The Seoul Central District Court has sentenced former interior and safety minister Lee Sang-min to a seven-year prison term for his role in an insurrection tied to the brief declaration of martial law by former President Yoon Suk Yeol on December 3, 2024. Lee was convicted of forwarding presidential directives intended to suppress media outlets critical of the administration by cutting off electricity and water supplies. The court emphasized that Lee’s actions aimed to suppress dissent, undermining democratic principles, and thus merited substantial punishment. Although prosecutors had initially sought a 15-year sentence, the court settled on a seven-year term.
The court’s decision follows the collapse of the martial law order within hours, as members of the National Assembly overcame military and police blockades to nullify Yoon’s declaration. Troops had been sent to the National Assembly, civilian governance was briefly suspended, and media access was restricted. The decree was ultimately lifted early on December 4, after lawmakers intervened. This episode led to Yoon’s impeachment in December 2024, removal in March 2025, and subsequent arrest. He currently faces multiple trials, with prosecutors seeking the death penalty for rebellion charges. More details can be found here.
Lee, detained since August 2025, denied any criminal intent, claiming he acted under lawful executive orders without knowledge of unconstitutional plans. His defense team has announced plans to appeal the verdict. Meanwhile, supporters of the former administration condemned the trial as partisan retaliation, while opposition groups praised the decision as necessary for safeguarding democracy.
This ruling is the second conviction of a senior official related to the martial law debacle. Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo received a 23-year sentence earlier, highlighting the judicial scrutiny of these events. The ongoing legal proceedings continue to test South Korea’s constitutional safeguards against executive overreach and probe the boundaries of cabinet liability in emergencies.
As the judiciary handles cases involving former top officials, the South Korean legal system’s ability to address high-level attempts to subvert constitutional norms is scrutinized globally. These trials could redefine interpretations of emergency powers, ultimately affecting how democratic institutions respond to future constitutional crises.