Lee Sang-min sentenced to 7 years in first trial over media power and water cut orders: "Martial law was insurrection"

According to Financial News, former Interior and Safety Minister Lee Sang-min, who was indicted for ordering power and water cuts to certain media outlets at the time of former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s December 3 emergency martial law declaration, was sentenced to seven years in prison in his first trial. The court found that Lee participated in the alleged "insurrection" and recognized the emergency martial law as an act of insurrection. This is expected to inevitably affect the upcoming ruling on former President Yoon’s charge of being the principal offender of insurrection.
Criminal Division 32 of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Ryu Kyung-jin, on the 12th sentenced Lee, who had been detained and indicted on charges including participation in an important mission for insurrection, abuse of authority to interfere with the exercise of rights, and perjury, to seven years in prison.
The court first defined the December 3 emergency martial law as an act of insurrection. This conclusion is the same as that reached in the first-instance ruling for former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo.
The court stated, "There was a purpose of disturbing the constitutional order by making it impossible for the National Assembly, a state institution established by the Constitution, to exercise its powers," and added, "It was a riot in which many people exercised physical force and threatened harm, to the extent of disturbing the peace of a region."
The court found Lee guilty on all counts related to the plan to cut power and water to media outlets and to blockade the National Assembly, that is, the charge of participation in an important mission for insurrection. His claims that he never conspired in Yoon’s insurrection and that he opposed the declaration of martial law were all rejected. The court determined that a document containing former President Yoon’s instructions on cutting power and water to media outlets actually existed. It explained that it based this conclusion on the fact that former senior police leadership, including Jo Ji-ho and Kim Bong-sik, had blockaded the National Assembly at the time, and that troops were deployed to the National Assembly.
On this basis, the court also acknowledged that Lee had received the document containing Yoon’s instructions and had passed orders on to former National Fire Agency Commissioner Heo Seok-gon. The court criticized that, although Lee was a legal professional and a high-ranking official who fully understood the meaning of emergency martial law, he still carried out his duties, even if only passively. Although the power and water cuts to media outlets were never actually carried out, the court held that he nonetheless participated in former President Yoon’s insurrection.
The court pointed to factors such as the police blockade of the National Assembly at a specific time and the fact that Lee was aware of the situation at the National Assembly through his phone call with then National Police Agency Commissioner General Jo Ji-ho, and stated, "The court finds that the defendant had intent to participate in an important mission for insurrection and a purpose of disturbing the constitutional order."
However, the court acquitted Lee of the charge of abuse of authority to interfere with the exercise of rights. The Special Prosecutor Team for Insurrection and Treason, led by Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok, had argued that after the declaration of emergency martial law, Lee ordered Commissioner Heo of the National Fire Agency to cut power and water to media outlets, thereby forcing him to perform duties for which he had no legal obligation.
The court instead found that the interior minister has the authority to direct the National Fire Agency, which is under the ministry, for disaster management. It added that, given that front-line fire stations were not in a state of readiness to actually carry out power and water cuts to media outlets, it could not accept the argument that Lee had ordered the NFA commissioner to perform duties for which he had no obligation.
In addition, some of the perjury charges against Lee were found to be valid. The court criticized, "The insurrectionary acts of former President Yoon and others ignored the legitimate procedures envisaged by the Constitution and, through violent means, made it impossible for state institutions to exercise their powers through the National Assembly," and continued, "The defendant participated in the insurrection by directly ordering the National Fire Agency under his command to cooperate in cutting power and water to media outlets, so his culpability is by no means light. There is no evidence that he actively tried to dissuade the insurrection, and far from taking appropriate responsibility, he committed perjury at the Constitutional Court of Korea in an attempt to conceal the truth and escape liability, which makes him all the more blameworthy."
The court added that it had also taken into account several factors in Lee’s favor: that no prior plotting or preparatory circumstances were found before the declaration of emergency martial law; that he did not repeatedly issue orders to cut power and water, meaning he did not actively carry out important missions for the insurrection; and that the measures to cut power and water to media outlets were never actually implemented.
With Lee becoming the second figure after former Prime Minister Han to be convicted and given a prison sentence on insurrection charges, attention is now focused on the upcoming ruling on former President Yoon’s alleged role as the "principal offender" of insurrection. Yoon is scheduled to receive his first-instance verdict on the 19th. As all the cabinet members of the Yoon administration who were charged with participation in an important mission for insurrection have now been found guilty, legal experts expect this will also influence the sentence handed down to the former president.
theknight@fnnews.com Jung Kyung-soo Reporter