From the Prime Minister's Sentencing Years to South Korea's "Martial Law Crisis": An Attempted "Self-Coup" and the Resilience of Democratic Institutions
22/01/2026
On January 21, 2025, the voice of Judge Lee Jin-kwan reading the verdict from the 33rd Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court was broadcast nationwide via television. Former Prime Minister Han Deok-su, 76 years old, was sentenced to 23 years in prison for his involvement in the rebellion initiated by former President Yoon Suk-yeol in December 2024. The verdict was harshly worded, stating that his actions disregarded the duties and responsibilities of a prime minister and warning that South Korea could thereby return to a dark past of trampling on the people's basic rights and the liberal democratic order, sinking long-term into the quagmire of dictatorship. The sentence was a full 8 years longer than the 15 years sought by the prosecution. After the verdict was announced, Han Deok-su was taken into custody in the courtroom.
This is not an isolated case. Five days ago, the same court had just sentenced Yoon Suk-yeol to five years in prison on charges including obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant. As for the trial of Yoon Suk-yeol himself as the mastermind of the rebellion, prosecutors have sought the death penalty, with the final verdict scheduled to be delivered on February 19. From the president to the prime minister, and from the defense minister and security minister to intelligence and police chiefs as well as senior military officials, a judicial reckoning surrounding the martial law crisis is unfolding across South Korea. This incident, characterized by the judge as a top-down rebellion or self-coup, has not only torn apart South Korea's political landscape but also subjected its constitutional democratic system to an extreme stress test.
Looking Back at the Event: The "Night of Terror" on [Date]
To comprehend the gravity behind Han Deok-soo's 23-year prison sentence, one must return to that decisive night.
At 10:28 PM on December 3, 2024, then-President Yoon Suk Yeol appeared on television screens with a solemn expression. He declared a nationwide state of emergency, accusing the Congress controlled by the opposition Democratic Party of being a criminal den, and vowed to eradicate shameless North Korean followers and anti-state forces. He ordered the military and police to enter the Capitol building and election offices at all levels. In his televised address, Yoon Suk Yeol directly linked political opponents to national enemies, attempting to suspend normal constitutional procedures in the name of national security.
However, this meticulously planned lightning operation revealed haste and fragility from the very beginning. According to evidence later disclosed in court, the entire plan was secretly advanced within an extremely limited circle. Only six cabinet ministers were summoned to the presidential palace in advance, and the so-called cabinet meeting was merely to fulfill the procedural requirement that a martial law decree formally needed cabinet deliberation. Closed-circuit television footage showed that while Yoon Suk-yeol explained the plan, then Prime Minister Han Duck-soo nodded beside him and received documents, including the martial law proclamation.
The judge noted in the ruling that Han Deok-soo had learned of the entire plan hours before the televised address. His key role was to provide crucial assistance to Yoon Suk-yeol and others in their acts of rebellion by ensuring, at least formally, that procedural requirements were met. Specifically, he helped convene a cabinet meeting that met the statutory minimum attendance requirement but deliberately prevented any substantive deliberation, reducing the meeting to a rubber stamp for illegal orders. The most damaging evidence came from a phone call on December 8, in which Han Deok-soo instructed a presidential aide to destroy a backdated martial law document, saying, "Treat it as if my signature never existed."
Ironically, the martial law decree itself did not even survive the night. Thousands of citizens took to the streets to protest, and the military and police dispatched to the National Assembly did not take strong measures to control the situation. Enough lawmakers eventually managed to enter the chamber and voted to overturn the martial law decree. There was no large-scale violence, but the country had plunged into a deep political crisis. This short-lived martial law instantly dragged South Korea back into the dark memories unseen since the Gwangju Incident of the 1980s.
Legal Characterization: Why "Rebellion" Instead of "Political Mistake"?
The ruling in the Han Deok-soo case holds core legal significance as it marks the first judicial characterization of the martial law attempt on December 3, 2024, as a rebellion. This characterization goes beyond simple abuse of power or procedural violations, directly addressing the essence of the act as a fundamental subversion of the constitutional order.
Judge Li Zhenkuan explicitly rejected referencing past military coup precedents in the judgment and introduced a more contemporary concept—self-coup. The so-called self-coup refers to a situation where a ruler who comes to power through democratic elections uses their legitimate authority to systematically undermine democratic institutions in order to establish authoritarian rule. Unlike traditional military coups, a self-coup is more covert, cloaked in legality, and erodes the foundations of democracy from within, making it a uniquely dangerous threat to democratic systems.
The court found that Yoon Suk Yeol's actions constituted rebellion, as he mobilized national armed forces against the legislative body with the aim of undermining the constitutional order, to a degree severe enough to disrupt South Korea's stability. Han Duck-soo's role, on the other hand, was to cloak this self-coup with a veneer of procedural legitimacy. As the Prime Minister, he is the constitutionally designated second-in-command of the state, possessing the legal authority to countersign martial law decrees or refuse to convene cabinet meetings, thereby serving as a crucial gatekeeper against unlawful orders. However, he chose to turn a blind eye and participate.
The judgment emphasizes that Han Deok-soo's culpability lies not only in what he did, but also in what he failed to do. Although he claimed to have privately expressed concerns to Yoon Suk-yeol and described himself as being in a state of psychological shock, the court found this insufficient to absolve him of his guilt. His constitutional duty was to clearly oppose and take concrete action to prevent the illegal process, not to assist in its completion after voicing a weak objection. The court noted that throughout the trial, Han Deok-soo continuously concealed evidence, gave false testimony, and showed no genuine remorse, which aggravated his sentence.
From the prosecution's request for a 15-year sentence to the court's imposition of a 23-year sentence, this 8-year increase clearly conveys the judicial system's assessment of the severity of this case. This characterization and heavy sentencing set the tone for the subsequent trials of Yoon Suk-yeol and other high-ranking officials involved, indicating that a comprehensive constitutional reckoning is imminent.
Character Fate: The Tragedy of Technocrats and the Political Vortex
Han Deok-soo's own life trajectory adds a tragic hue to this political disaster. He is not a typical radical politician, but a seasoned career diplomat and technocrat who has served under five presidents (including both conservatives and progressives). From 2007 to 2008, he first served as Prime Minister under the progressive President Roh Moo-hyun; in May 2022, he was appointed as Prime Minister by the conservative President Yoon Suk-yeol, becoming the longest-serving Prime Minister within a single presidential term in the history of South Korea's democratization.
This cross-party career experience should have made him a symbol of national stability and professionalism. However, he became the center of the storm during the constitutional crisis at the end of 2024. After Yoon Suk Yeol was impeached by the National Assembly, Han Deok-soo assumed the role of acting president in accordance with the constitution. Yet, he soon clashed with opposition lawmakers and faced impeachment for refusing to fill vacancies in the Constitutional Court, which was reviewing whether to formally remove Yoon Suk Yeol from office. Although the Constitutional Court later reinstated him as acting president, Han Deok-soo resigned after the court officially removed Yoon Suk Yeol in early April 2025, intending to participate in the early general election in June.
His political ambitions ultimately went unfulfilled. Having failed to secure the official nomination from Yoon Suk-yeol's conservative party, he withdrew from the race. In the end, Lee Jae-myung, former leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, won the presidency. From a powerful prime minister and acting president, to a defeated candidate, and then to a prisoner, Han Duck-soo's rapid downfall is lamentable. His story seems like a metaphor: in the polarized political struggle, elites who attempt to remain technically neutral or waver may ultimately be swallowed by the whirlpool.
Institutional Reflection: The "Stress Test" of South Korean Democracy and Future Challenges
The case of Han Deok-soo and the series of trials it triggered go far beyond personal punishment; they represent a profound reflection and collective healing of South Korean society on its own democratic system.
This crisis has exposed the lingering vulnerabilities within South Korea's democratic system. Despite the arduous transition from authoritarian rule to democracy, political polarization and a winner-takes-all mentality can still drive those in power to resort to extreme measures. Yoon Suk-yeol's rhetoric, which stigmatizes the opposition party as followers of North Korea, epitomizes the peak of such polarized politics. It attempts to use national security discourse to completely negate the legitimacy of political opponents, thereby paving the way for extraordinary measures.
However, the ultimate resolution of the crisis also demonstrated the resilience of South Korea's democratic system. The National Assembly withstood pressure to veto the martial law decree, the public engaged in large-scale peaceful protests, the judicial system resisted political pressure to conduct independent trials, and the Constitutional Court played a key role in the impeachment process—these constitutional mechanisms functioned effectively at critical moments, preventing the nation from sliding into the abyss. The dark past warned of by the judges in their verdicts is precisely the kind of collective memory that prompted various institutions to hold the line.
This judicial reckoning also brings new challenges. The unprecedented call for the death penalty against a former president in South Korea's modern history highlights the intensity of political struggles. How to ensure the fairness of the trial is not perceived as victor's revenge, thereby triggering a new cycle of political retaliation, is a difficult issue that South Korean society must confront. Furthermore, the damage to the country's international image, as well as the shocks to diplomacy and financial markets caused by the incident, will require time to fully assess their long-term impacts.
Han Deok-soo's 23-year prison sentence stands like a heavy monument, marking a perilous detour in South Korea's democratic history. It serves as a reminder to the world that the consolidation of democracy is not a one-time achievement; the provisions of the constitution require guardians to activate them with courage and wisdom. For South Korea, emerging from the shadow of the martial law crisis requires not only judicial reckoning but also, on the basis of deep reflection, the rebuilding of political trust and constitutional culture to ensure that the script of a self-coup is never repeated. The verdict on Yoon Suk-yeol in February will be a crucial step for the nation as it moves into the next political cycle.
Reference materials
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/21/asia/south-korea-han-yoon-jailed-intl-hnk
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/south-korea-court-sentences-ex-061444663.html
https://www.ilpost.it/2026/01/21/corea-del-sud-ex-primo-ministro-han-ducksoo-condannato/
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/top-ally-south-koreas-yoon-23-years-prison-129410989