In a theatrical upsurge of the continuing political unrest in South Korea, a special prosecutor has requested a fifteen-year jail sentence against former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, as he aided an insurrection following the controversial declaration of martial law by former President Yoon Suk Yeol.
The request was made at the last hearing in the Seoul Central District Court on November 26, 2025, and it represents one of the most essential moments in the studies that have shaken the democracy of the country since the events of last December.
Han is a 76-year-old distinguished technocrat with a long and eventful career who served five presidents, and as he stepped into the court, he looked calm yet determined. The case is based on the fact that Yoon suddenly declared emergency martial law on December 3, 2024, an event that was broadly criticised as the unconstitutional usurpation of power. According to prosecutors, Han, being the second-in-command in the state, not only failed to stop the crisis, but he was also involved in the process of legitimising the crisis.
History of the Declaration of Martial Law
It started at the end of last year when President Yoon Suk Yeol, under increasing political stress from opposition parties and corruption scandals in his inner circle, proclaimed martial law in a late-night speech. Yoon used the threat of the anti-state forces and purported North Korean influences to mobilise armies to surround the National Assembly, effectively ending the activities of the parliament and censoring it.
The action had an immediate backlash, and politicians and citizens flocked to the streets in protest. In hours, the National Assembly overwhelmingly voted to repeal the decree, and Yoon had no choice but to withdraw the decree after only six hours.
This brief episode of martial law caused much havoc in South Korea, reminding the people of the authoritarian history of the nation under military rule. It caused Yoon to be impeached by parliament a few days later and removed from office by the Constitutional Court in March 2025. Yoon is now under his own trial for masterminding the insurrection, and he may be sentenced to life imprisonment or the death penalty, though no one has been sentenced since 1997 in South Korea.
The then-prime minister, Han, took over as acting president after the impeachment of Yoon. But soon there was suspicion of his connection with the preceding events before the declaration. Investigators say that Han was present at a crucial Cabinet meeting just before Yoon announced it, and in that meeting, Han allegedly changed the decree on martial law to give it more legal trappings. When the decree was overturned, Han was also accused of having thrown the document away and giving false evidence under oath before the Constitutional Court.
Accusation and Case of the Prosecutor against Han
The Special counsel team headed by Cho Eun-suk has charged Han with several cases, among them aiding the mastermind of an insurrection, being instrumental in the actual insurrection and perjury. In the hearing, the prosecutors portrayed Han as a co-conspirator who avoided his responsibility to protect the institutions of democracy.
The team accused the defendant in court of not preventing the insurrection and engaging in other related activities, which have proven harmful to the country and its people. They also condemned the uncompromising attitude of Han to the investigation and termed the whole event a terror against democracy.
Underlining the significance of the deterrent, one of the prosecutors said that we feel that any serious punishment of the defendant is inevitable, to ensure that such a tragic history is not repeated. The 15-year sentence is indicative of the severity of the charges, which places the case of Han as an example of the dozens of other defendants involved in the scandal, stretching down to former military leaders and Cabinet officials.
Defence and Political Journey of Han
Han has fiercely protested the essentials of being involved in assisting the insurrection, confession being made only on the charge of perjury. In his defence, he stated that he was uninformed of the overall plan to implement martial law and that he was, in fact, against it in the presidential office, warning that the existence of the economy and international status of South Korea would be terrible. It would create great difficulties in the economy and international credibility, and this is what Han told the court, which brought a sense of reason to the mess.
The depth of Han is added to his predicament by his history. He was a career diplomat and economist who served as finance minister, United States ambassador and chairman of the Korea International Trade Association.
His appointment as the prime minister under Yoon in 2022 was perceived to be a stabilising force, but the martial law crisis made his name tainted. Following the dethronement of Yoon, Han took over the presidency temporarily as acting president, but was also impeached in December 2024 on the same charges.
In early 2025, the Constitutional Court struck down that impeachment, and he was back to his duties until he resigned to run as a presidential candidate in the snap election in the same June. The divisions that existed on the inside among conservatives made him step down, and he faced the consequences of the law all by himself.
Wider Political Implications on South Korean Politics
This court case highlights how weak the democratic structures of South Korea are, which are yet to recover after the past decades of military dictatorships. The martial law exercise has created suspicion in people regarding political leaders, and opinion polls indicate that the majority of the people support strict accountability measures. Opposition parties have celebrated the fact that the prosecution has demanded a witch hunt; others have criticised it as a witch hunt.
Being the inaugural significant decision in this line of cases, Han’s decision (which should be made on either January 21 or 28, 2026) may have an impact on the current trial of Yoon and create a narrative concerning executive overreach. According to legal analysts, the conviction may be the catalyst for reforms to avoid abuse in the future, like the enhanced control over presidential powers of emergency.
Institutional resilience of South Korean institutions is also noted in the case. Nevertheless, a rapid parliamentary reaction and judicial control allowed avoiding a complete shift into authoritarianism despite the turmoil. But as the economic uncertainties and geopolitical relations with North Korea loom, the country is closely observing as the leaders of this country are put to the test.
The destiny of Han in a courtroom represents a wider scorecard. At the conclusion of the work by the special prosecutor, it had been made clear that no one, irrespective of rank, is above the law in protecting democracy. It is yet to be seen whether this principle will stand in the coming months.