Court ruling sets strict standards for public officials

On Jan. 21, a South Korean court sentenced former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to 23 years in prison, more than 1.5 times the punishment sought by prosecutors. The first-instance ruling is expected to fuel continued debate over legal interpretation and sentencing standards. Attention will also turn to upcoming verdicts involving former President Yoon Suk Yeol and other cabinet members. As the judiciary’s first judgment on the Dec. 3 emergency decree, however, the decision delivers a grave message to South Korean society.

The verdict underscores that senior public officials who fail to uphold the constitution will face severe punishment. It serves as a reminder to the entire civil service of its constitutional obligations in a democratic, rule-of-law state. The unusually heavy sentence reflects the court’s view that the Dec. 3 uprising was not a conventional military coup but a top-down rebellion that inflicted serious harm and represented an anachronistic act in an advanced democracy. The ruling also took into account South Korea’s heightened political and civic maturity, which demands greater responsibility from officials as guardians against the abuse of power.

The trial court concluded that Han did more than passively tolerate the rebellion and instead took part in it. As the government’s second-highest official, he bore a constitutional duty to defend the order of the state, and his failure to act amounted, in the court’s view, to participation in the rebellion itself. Judges found that he was involved in key actions, including discussions on procedural requirements to give the appearance of State Council deliberations and conversations about cutting electricity and water supplies to media outlets.

Han, a career elite bureaucrat who served under multiple administrations, was long known as a master of political survival. He could argue that no one was in a position to restrain the erratic actions of a delusional leader. Yet the court noted that he did not actively oppose the emergency decree, later refused to appoint Constitutional Court justices while serving as acting president, and even declared his candidacy for the presidency. These actions, the court said, reflected opportunism. Its conclusion that Han chose to join the rebellion believing it might succeed must be understood in that context.

If an elected president holds ultimate authority, the prime minister, as the highest-ranking appointed official, must be more than a passive executor of orders. Even military commanders operating within rigid chains of command found ways to resist the rebellion. Han did not. He failed to meet responsibilities comparable to those shouldered by soldiers, police officers and ordinary citizens. The ruling therefore serves as a stark warning to all public servants, one that reaches well beyond the fate of a single individual.