Han Duck-soo’s 15-Year Sentence: A Deep Dive into the Controversial Ruling and Its Implications

Translation result.

Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo drew mixed reactions from the press after an appellate court sentenced him to 15 years in prison. Newspapers also offered conflicting assessments over who bore responsibility for the failed constitutional amendment. Below is a roundup of major editorials published on May 8.

The appellate court on May 7 sentenced Han Duck-soo to 15 years in prison. That is eight years less than the 23-year term imposed at trial, but it matches the sentence sought by the special prosecutor. Dong-A Ilbo and Hankyoreh read the same ruling in opposite ways.

In an editorial titled Han Duck-soo 15 years… Appellate court confirms the grave responsibility of the nation’s No. 2, Dong-A Ilbo wrote that the appellate panel largely upheld the trial court’s guilty findings on the principal charges. The paper said the Dec. 3 declaration of emergency martial law amounted to a riot aimed at disrupting the constitutional order and that the prime minister—who should have led efforts to stop it—participated in the insurrection and therefore merited stern punishment.

The paper added that the trial court’s finding—that Han’s failure to stop former President Yoon from declaring martial law constituted participation in insurrection by omission—did not hold on appeal. Some perjury charges were also reversed. Aside from those differences, the appellate decision still confirmed the heavy responsibility of the nation’s No. 2 and, in essence, does not diverge from the unusually severe sentence imposed at trial.

By contrast, Hankyoreh, in an editorial headlined Han Duck-soo 15 years — Did the court treat the No. 2’s responsibility too lightly?, argued that the core findings—such as that Han led the cabinet meeting to give the illegal martial law a veneer of legitimacy—were the same as at trial. It said the eight-year reduction in sentence is hard to accept. The paper particularly criticized the appellate court for citing Han’s presiding over a cabinet meeting that lifted the emergency as a reason for leniency and derided the court’s use of Han’s \”about 50 years of public service\” as a mitigating factor. Hankyoreh argued that precisely because of his long public service, he should have met his obligations to the public.

The constitutional amendment proposed by six parties excluding the People Power Party collapsed in the National Assembly plenary session on May 7 after People Power lawmakers refused to take part in the vote.

Hankyoreh, in an editorial titled Constitutional amendment killed by People Power’s tactics — Drop the agitation and sophistry and follow public will, said the reasons the People Power Party gave for skipping the vote were uniformly weak and contrived. Party leader Jang Dong-hyeok called the amendment a \”political ploy to extend Lee Jae-myung’s dictatorship,\” saying, \”If you want an amendment, Lee Jae-myung must first declare he cannot run for re-election.\” The editorial asked where the amendment contained any provision that would lead to presidential re-election. It added that the joint statement issued in the name of People Power lawmakers was full of sophistry, and explained that the amendment sought to strengthen parliamentary control over martial law to block loyalist-style coups like the Dec. 3 incident.

Kyunghyang also argued, in an editorial titled People Power killed even a no-controversy amendment — Was their promise to ‘cut off insurrection’ empty?, that the proposal excluded divisive issues such as the overall power structure and contained only the minimal provisions both politicians and the public could accept. Its intent was to open the door to constitutional reform and proceed gradually. The paper said People Power’s opposition is difficult to justify: the party refused to participate in discussions, dismissed the amendment as a rushed election stunt for the ruling party, and then advanced the claim that it was a \”build-up to extend Lee Jae-myung’s dictatorship.\”

By contrast, Chosun Ilbo warned in an editorial titled A solo drum-and-lute amendment — Calling opponents ‘insurrection forces’?, that amending the constitution alters the nation’s supreme law and should not be pushed through without opposition agreement. That partly explains low public interest; many people likely did not know the amendment had even been filed. The paper said it was not an exaggeration to suggest the Democratic Party acted alone. It also quoted President Lee Jae-myung as saying, \”If you oppose measures to block illegal martial law, you are effectively defending illegal martial law,\” and questioned what was wrong with a constitution that had previously prevented such martial law and enabled the current president. Chosun added that many citizens oppose martial law yet still oppose this amendment—are they therefore ‘insurrection forces’?

JoongAng criticized both sides in an editorial titled The amendment should come from bipartisan agreement. The paper wrote that if the Democratic Party truly had the will and sincerity to amend the constitution, it should have launched public discussion and persuaded the opposition before filing. At the same time, JoongAng said People Power deserves criticism for opposing the amendment without explaining how a referendum might affect upcoming elections.

Dong-A, in Vote on amendment fails due to People Power boycott… Find common ground after local elections, placed greater responsibility on People Power. The paper argued that People Power could have joined the amendment process and helped create a turning point to escape the unconstitutional martial law quagmire that had persisted for more than a year and five months; it criticized the party’s absence. Still, Dong-A urged the Democratic Party to build a foundation of trust to win the opposition’s support, since in reality it cannot reach the parliamentary threshold for amendment without People Power’s participation.

As the fuel price cap entered its 57th day, JoongAng, Segye Ilbo, and Korea Economic Daily all called for a prompt end to the policy. They cited paralyzed market mechanisms and heavy fiscal costs, though each focused on slightly different aspects of the problem.

JoongAng wrote in an editorial titled Fuel price cap stuck in a dilemma — End it as soon as possible that by suppressing prices the cap has disabled the demand-supply balancing function and worsened price distortions. It pointed to a surge in highway traffic during an early-month holiday as evidence. The paper argued the cap effectively subsidizes drivers of expensive foreign cars at the expense of public-transport users. To curb unnecessary crude consumption and reduce fiscal strain, JoongAng urged lifting the cap quickly and refocusing support on low-income and vulnerable households.

Segye Ilbo, in Abandon artificial price controls amid Middle East-driven inflation and respond head-on, warned that even if a U.S.–Iran war ends, international oil prices may not return to pre-war levels. Clearing mines in the Strait of Hormuz and restoring oil fields and refineries could take months or years, the paper noted. Segye urged abandoning artificial price controls and tackling the problem directly: the government should focus on diversifying supply chains by securing crude supplies and alternative routes and adopt a long-term strategy to restructure energy-intensive industries.

Korea Economic Daily argued in Third freeze of fuel price cap — Time to seek an exit strategy that price controls weaken the market signals that would encourage consumers to reduce usage. With fewer incentives to cut energy consumption, suppressed prices will rebound sharply once the system ends. The paper noted signs that international oil prices may stabilize amid hints of a sudden U.S.–Iran ceasefire and urged the government not to cling to emergency measures but to present a roadmap to restore market functions. Price controls cannot solve energy security, it concluded.