From "Smooth Official Career" to Prisoner: The Constitutional Crisis and Historical Echoes Behind the Former South Korean Prime Minister's Years of Sentence

On January 21, 2026, in the 33rd Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court, the air was almost frozen. Judge Lee Jin-kwan's voice echoed through the courtroom as he read the verdict: "The defendant, Han Deok-soo, as the Prime Minister indirectly granted democratic legitimacy and responsibility... chose to turn a blind eye to the internal disturbance on December 3, 2024, and participated in it as a member." As the words fell, 76-year-old former South Korean Prime Minister Han Deok-soo was sentenced to 23 years in prison and taken into custody on the spot. This sentence is a full 8 years longer than the 15 years sought by the prosecution.

This is not an ordinary case of corruption or dereliction of duty. The court ruled that the core of Han Deok-su's crime lies in his involvement in key tasks related to internal rebellion, directly linked to the martial law decree issued by former President Yoon Suk-yeol on December 3, 2024, which shook South Korean society. The judge characterized the incident as a top-down internal rebellion or self-coup, with the goal of subverting the constitutional order. As a result, Han Deok-su became the first cabinet member in the Yoon Suk-yeol administration to be convicted of internal rebellion charges in connection with the martial law incident.

The verdict acts like a scalpel, dissecting the heart-stopping crisis that South Korea's democratic system underwent at the end of 2024. It also unveils the story of how a technocrat, who once served five presidents and was hailed as a master of navigating the world and a terminator of official careers, ultimately descended into a political abyss.

A "Self-Coup": The Constitutional Crisis of March 24, 1993

To comprehend the weight of Han Deok-soo's 23-year prison sentence, one must return to that decisive night—December 3, 2024.

At 10:28 PM that night, then-President Yoon Suk-yeol appeared on television, announcing a nationwide state of emergency in a grave tone. He referred to the National Assembly, then controlled by the opposition Democratic Party of Korea, as a criminal den, vowing to eradicate shameless North Korean followers and anti-state forces. The military and police were dispatched to the National Assembly building and election committees at all levels. This scene instantly brought back memories for many South Koreans of the military dictatorship era in the 1970s and 1980s, as a long-lost political chill spread through the air.

However, unlike the military coups led by generals in the past, Judge Li Zhenkuan explicitly stated in the ruling that this was a self-coup initiated by the core of elected power. Its unique danger lies in the fact that it did not stem from violent subversion outside the system, but rather from an administrative leader wielding legitimate power, attempting to use state machinery to forcibly halt democratic procedures and sideline the legislative body.

The court determined that the essential purpose of the martial law order was to subvert the constitutional order, which is equivalent to internal rebellion. Although Yoon Suk-yeol claimed his motive was to break the congressional deadlock and advance governance, the act of deploying armed forces to surround the representative institution had crossed the red line of democratic constitutionalism. The ruling warned that South Korea's democracy once faced the danger of regressing to a dark past, where the basic rights of the people and the liberal democratic order could be trampled, and the nation could be plunged into long-term dictatorship.

"Rubber Stamp" Meetings: The Prime Minister's Complicity and Dereliction of Duty

In this constitutional crisis, what role did then Prime Minister Han Deok-soo play? The details revealed in court show that he was far from a passive bystander, but rather the key operator who cloaked the martial law decree with procedural legitimacy.

Based on CCTV footage and communication records, Han Deok-soo learned of the martial law plan several hours before Yoon Suk-yeol's televised address. The footage shows that when Yoon Suk-yeol explained the plan, he nodded in acknowledgment and received documents containing the martial law announcement. His core culpability lies in actively planning and presiding over a State Council meeting that prioritized form over substance.

To ensure that the martial law decree could be formally approved by the Cabinet, Han Deok-soo assisted the Presidential Office by convening only six ministers in advance. This number just met the minimum legal quorum required for a State Council meeting by law, yet effectively excluded other ministers who might have raised objections, preventing the meeting from conducting any substantive deliberation. The court noted that Han Deok-soo actively created the appearance of a legitimate State Council meeting, allowing an unconstitutional order to be stamped with procedural approval.

More damning evidence comes from a phone call on December 8. Han Deok-soo instructed a presidential aide to destroy a backdated martial law document, saying, "Make it look like my signature never existed." This act not only confirms his guilt of forging official documents and destroying presidential records, but also completely shatters his defense of privately opposing martial law. The judge pointed out that Han Deok-soo continuously concealed evidence and committed perjury throughout the trial, showing no genuine remorse.

One of the core responsibilities granted to the Prime Minister by the Constitution is to serve as a check and balance when the President's actions may be unconstitutional. Specifically regarding martial law, the Prime Minister can prevent it by refusing to countersign or by declining to convene a State Council meeting. The court found that Han Duck-soo, as the second-highest official in the nation, bore a special duty to safeguard the Constitution. However, he chose to join this internal rebellion because he believed it might succeed. This betrayal, rooted in political calculation, is the fundamental reason for his severe sentence.

The Decline of the "Master of Social Navigation": Han Deok-soo's Five Dynasties in Officialdom and His Ultimate Gamble.

The sentencing of Han Deok-soo has evoked profound sentiments in South Korean politics that extend beyond the case itself. This is because he is not an ordinary political figure, but rather a highly symbolic evergreen within South Korea's bureaucratic system.

At the age of 76, Han Duck-soo's civil service career spans half a century, having served under five presidents: Kim Young-sam, Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, Lee Myung-bak, and Yoon Suk-yeol, crossing both conservative and progressive camps. He has held positions such as Vice Minister of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Chief Presidential Secretary for Economic Affairs, Minister for Trade, Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, Minister of Finance and Economy, Minister of the Office for Government Policy Coordination, Ambassador to the United States, and served twice as Prime Minister (2007-2008, 2022-2024). Under Yoon Suk-yeol's administration, he became the longest-serving Prime Minister within a single presidential term since South Korea's democratization.

South Korean media once described him as a master of colorless and odorless social navigation, even comparing him to the legendary minister Hwang Hui, who served five kings across the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties. He excels at remaining steadfast under regimes of different political spectrums and is seen as a model technocrat. However, it is precisely this overly adept social navigation that has taken a dangerous twist in the later period of the Yoon Suk-yeol administration.

The verdict stated that Han Deok-soo made a reckless gamble with power in his later years. In September 2024, he still solemnly declared in the National Assembly that martial law should not and could not be imposed. However, at the critical moment on December 3, when faced with the president's unconstitutional declaration of martial law, instead of firmly opposing it in accordance with his constitutional duties, he chose to express agreement and support based on the necessity and legitimacy of the martial law declaration, thus embarking on a path of collusion.

After Yoon Suk-yeol was impeached, Han Duck-soo served as acting president, but he refused to appoint Constitutional Court judges, which was interpreted by the public as an attempt to influence the outcome of Yoon Suk-yeol's impeachment trial. Later, he resigned to participate in the early presidential election, attempting to reach the pinnacle of power himself. This chain of actions outlines the trajectory of a senior bureaucrat, who, in the late stage of his political career, risked everything in pursuit of ultimate power, only to end up losing it all. When sentencing, the judge considered his long tenure as a high-ranking official as an aggravating factor, as his deliberate violation of the law and betrayal of fiduciary duties were deemed more severe.

Ripples of Judgment: Unfinished Reckoning and the Resilience of Democracy

The Han Deok-soo case is by no means an isolated incident; it marks the beginning of a series of legal and political reckonings. Its verdict sets a severe benchmark for subsequent related trials.

Just five days before Han Deok-soo was sentenced, Yoon Suk-yeol himself had already been sentenced to five years in prison for charges including obstruction of arrest and document forgery. The most serious accusation against Yoon Suk-yeol—the case of planning an internal disturbance—is scheduled for sentencing on February 19, 2026, with prosecutors having unusually sought the death penalty. Although South Korea has not carried out any executions since 1997, the very act of seeking such a sentence indicates the severity with which the state has characterized the nature of this matter.

Furthermore, several high-ranking officials of the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, including former Defense Minister, Minister of Justice, Director of the National Intelligence Service, Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency, and some senior military officers, have also been indicted on charges such as rebellion in connection with the martial law incident. As the first cabinet member to be convicted, Han Deok-soo's sentencing outcome will undoubtedly have a direct impact on the trials of these co-defendants.

From a broader historical perspective, the martial law turmoil in 2024 and its subsequent trials represent a profound stress test for South Korea more than thirty years after its democratization. It revealed the risk of elected dictatorship that may arise from the expansion of executive power, even after democratic institutions have become relatively consolidated. At the same time, the entire development of the event highlighted the resilience of South Korea's democratic mechanisms: the National Assembly withstood pressure to veto the martial law decree; the Constitutional Court completed the impeachment trial of the president; and the judicial system is independently holding those involved accountable.

Seoul Railway Station, 23-year-old commuter Kim Soo-hyun told Reuters while watching the verdict report on TV news: This ruling is completely acceptable to citizens who oppose martial law. Meanwhile, 79-year-old Kim In-sik sighed: I don't know if this elderly man wanted to dedicate himself to the Korean people in his own way, but the outcome is not good.

Han Deok-soo's 23-year prison sentence is not only a punishment for an individual's crimes but also a resolute rejection by South Korean society of the echoes of a dangerous history. It declares that any attempt to subvert constitutional order through extraordinary means, regardless of its origin, will face the most severe legal consequences. Ultimately, this trial is a profound narrative about what a nation chooses to remember, what it defends, and where it is determined to go. After weathering this storm, South Korea's democratic story is now attempting to write a new, more stable chapter within the framework of the law.