Lead

A special counsel team in South Korea has asked an appellate court to uphold a 23-year prison sentence for former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who was convicted of playing a key role in the insurrection tied to former President Yoon Suk Yeol's short-lived martial law declaration on December 3, 2024. The request was made on Tuesday at the Seoul High Court, according to Yonhap News Agency.

The sentence sought by special counsel Cho Eun-suk's team matches the 23-year term handed down by a lower court in January. That court had found Han guilty of failing to prevent Yoon from declaring martial law, a decision that plunged the country into political chaos.

Coverage Comparison

Three separate reports from Yonhap News Agency, all filed on the same day, detail the legal proceedings. The first two focus on Han's appeal, noting that the special counsel's request aligns with the lower court's January ruling. The third report, published on April 16, covers a separate but related development: the special counsel's request for a two-year sentence for Yoon on perjury charges arising from his testimony during Han's trial.

All three reports are attributed to Yonhap, South Korea's leading wire service, and present the facts in a neutral, straightforward manner, with no loaded language or editorial commentary.

Key Claims

  • A special counsel team sought a 23-year prison term for former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo in his appeal of an insurrection conviction, matching the sentence imposed by a lower court in January. (Reported by Yonhap)
  • Han was found guilty of playing a key role in the insurrection by not stopping Yoon from declaring martial law on December 3, 2024. (Reported by Yonhap)
  • During the lower court's sentencing, the court imposed a heavier punishment than the 15 years sought by the special counsel and ordered Han taken into custody. The court said Han had taken part in the insurrection by proposing that Yoon convene a Cabinet meeting before declaring the decree. (Reported by Yonhap)
  • The special counsel team argued that Han has continued to deny the charges in the appeals trial, consistently claiming he does not remember the events in question. (Reported by Yonhap)
  • The team also argued that Han contributed to political turmoil and national division despite serving as acting president following Yoon's impeachment. (Reported by Yonhap)
  • Separately, a special counsel team sought a two-year prison term for former President Yoon Suk Yeol on charges of giving false testimony during Han's insurrection trial. The request was made during the first and final hearing of Yoon's perjury trial at the Seoul Central District Court. (Reported by Yonhap)
  • Yoon is accused of giving the false impression that the Cabinet meeting he convened before declaring martial law was planned even before Han suggested it. (Reported by Yonhap)

Perspectives

The special counsel's position, as presented in the Yonhap reports, is that Han bears significant responsibility for the events of December 3, 2024, and that his continued denial of wrongdoing and claims of memory loss do not mitigate his role. The team has asked the appellate court to overturn acquittals on some charges and impose the same 23-year sentence, arguing that Han's actions contributed to political instability and national division.

Han's defense, as reflected in the reports, maintains his innocence, with Han asserting he does not remember the events in question. The lower court's decision to exceed the special counsel's initial sentencing recommendation suggests a judiciary that views Han's conduct as particularly egregious.

Regarding Yoon, the perjury charges stem from testimony he gave during Han's trial, where he allegedly misrepresented the timeline of Cabinet meeting planning. Yoon is already standing trial on insurrection and other charges from the martial law declaration, and this additional case adds to his legal jeopardy.

These reports are based solely on the special counsel's arguments and court proceedings; Han's full defense and any rebuttals have not been detailed in the provided excerpts. As such, the outcome of both appeals remains to be seen, with the appellate court's decisions pending.