[Edaily LEE JI-EUN Kang Min-hyeok Reporter] Former Justice Minister Park Seong-jae, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison at the first trial on charges of participating in the declaration of a state of emergency on December 3, had his sentence significantly reduced to nine years in prison on appeal. However, Mr. Park’s legal team has stated that they intend to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court regarding the guilty verdict.

The Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-sik), which specializes in insurrection cases, sentenced former Minister Park to nine years in prison on the 21st during his appeal trial, where he was indicted on charges including engaging in critical tasks related to insurrection.

Former Minister Park is accused of convening a meeting of senior Justice Ministry officials immediately after the declaration of a state of emergency on December 3, 2024, and instructing them to consider dispatching prosecutors to the Joint Investigation Headquarters of the Martial Law Command. He is also accused of sequentially participating in former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s insurrection crimes, including inspecting the capacity of correctional facilities and ordering staff responsible for enforcing travel bans to report for duty.

Previously, the first-instance court—Criminal Division 33 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Lee Jin-gwan)—sentenced him to 25 years in prison last July, a sentence harsher than the 20-year prison term sought by Special Prosecutor Jo Eun-seok’s team. However, regarding the charge that former Minister Park accepted a request from Mrs. Kim and inquired about the status of the investigation into Mrs. Kim’s “Dior bag scandal,” the court dismissed the indictment, ruling that it “fell outside the scope of the special counsel’s investigation.”

The Special Prosecutor’s Office initially appealed the first-instance verdict but later withdrew its appeal regarding the charge of violating the Anti-Graft Act. This was a precautionary measure taken in anticipation of the possibility that, if the appeal regarding the dismissed charge were accepted, the case involving the charge of “performing critical duties related to insurrection”—for which he had been found guilty in the first instance—would also be remanded for retrial, thereby delaying the proceedings.

The appellate court ruled that former Minister Park’s instructions to have immigration officials stand by for duty and to review the capacity of correctional facilities in the Seoul metropolitan area were intended to enforce the proclamation of a state of emergency, and—like the first-instance court—found that the charge of engaging in critical duties related to insurrection was established.

However, regarding the review of the occupancy status of cells at the Seoul Detention Center—for which the first-instance court had found him guilty—the court acquitted him, stating, “There is no evidence to suggest that a document detailing the available cell status at the Seoul Detention Center was reported to former Minister Park and others, and it is difficult to conclude that he was aware of the specific discrepancies between the computer records and the actual situation.”

The conviction regarding his instruction to prepare for the dispatch of personnel, such as prosecutors, to the Joint Investigation Headquarters was also overturned. The court pointed out, “It is difficult to view a general-principle instruction such as ‘review this in preparation for a request from the Joint Investigation Headquarters to dispatch prosecutors and others’ as contributing to the achievement of the objective of insurrection,” adding, “The specific content of the three phone calls between former Minister Park and former Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jeong has not been confirmed.”

In addition, all guilty verdicts from the first trial regarding charges of abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights—including △instructing officials in charge of travel bans to report for duty and stand by, △instructing a review of the capacity of correctional facilities in the Seoul metropolitan area, and △drafting a document outlining the rationale for justifying martial law—were overturned. This was because it was difficult to conclusively determine that these tasks were not mandated by law.

Regarding the sentencing rationale, the court stated, “It is difficult to conclude that he conspired in advance with former President Yoon and former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun regarding martial law,” adding, “Although he issued instructions necessary for the enforcement of the proclamation in this case, these amounted only to preparatory acts, and no actual results—such as the detention of individuals or travel bans—occurred.” The court also took into favorable consideration the fact that he had no prior criminal record and had served as a public official for approximately 30 years.

On the other hand, the court considered the following as aggravating factors: △ as Minister of Justice, he was the first among the so-called “8 o’clock members” to arrive at the Presidential Office and appears to have spent the longest time discussing martial law; △ he is deemed to have been well aware that martial law and the proclamation were unconstitutional; and △ he did not clearly express his opposition to martial law.

Immediately after the verdict, former Minister Park’s legal team stated, “It is absolutely impossible to accept the facts as presented in the parts where he was found guilty,” and announced, “Since it appears clear that the court made an erroneous judgment, we will file an appeal with the Supreme Court to have it corrected.”

Meanwhile, regarding the charge of violating the National Assembly Testimony and Evidence Act against former Head of the Legislation Bureau Lee Wan-kyu, who was indicted alongside Park, the court overturned the lower court’s dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court. The court explained, “Under the Special Prosecutor Act on Insurrection, the term ‘cases involving criminal complaints or accusations’ must be interpreted as including cases related to acts of insurrection or treason,” adding, “Such cases fall within the scope of the special prosecutor’s investigation.”

Former Director Lee is accused of giving false testimony to the National Assembly—stating that “there was no discussion regarding martial law”—during the so-called “Samcheong-dong safe house meeting” held the day after martial law was declared.