Han and Counsel Submit Appeals to Seoul High Court On Monday, Jan 26 2026, former Prime Minister Han Duck‑soo and special counsel Cho Eun‑suk each lodged appeals against the Seoul Central District Court’s 23‑year prison ruling for Han’s role in the Dec. 3 2024 insurrection linked to President Yoon Suk‑yeol’s brief martial‑law decree [1]. The appeals will be heard by a newly created division of the Seoul High Court, with a hearing scheduled for Feb. 23 2026. Han remains in custody over concerns he might destroy evidence, while Cho seeks to overturn not‑guilty findings on several charges [1].

Seoul Central Court Handed Down 23‑Year Sentence The Seoul Central District Court delivered its judgment on Jan 23 2026, imposing a 23‑year term that makes Han the first member of Yoon’s cabinet to be convicted in connection with the martial‑law episode [1]. The court described Yoon’s emergency proclamation as a “self‑coup” and imposed a penalty harsher than the 15‑year term requested by the special counsel [1]. Prosecutors had argued that Han’s actions directly supported the illegal declaration, while the court’s language underscores the gravity of the constitutional breach [1].

Charges Include Perjury and Manipulation of Martial‑Law Proclamation The indictment alleges Han urged a cabinet meeting before the decree, signed a revised proclamation after the order was lifted to bolster its legitimacy, and committed perjury before the Constitutional Court [1][2]. Prosecutors contend these acts constitute abetting the ringleader and violating procedural duties, while Han maintains he had no prior knowledge of Yoon’s plan [2]. The perjury charge stems from statements Han made under oath that prosecutors say were false, a key element in the court’s insurrection finding [2].

Verdict Timing and Insurrection Definition Remain Central Issues The court’s verdict was originally set for Feb. 19 2026, a date that will determine whether the martial‑law declaration qualifies as an insurrection under the Constitution [2]. Special counsel Cho Eun‑suk’s team had asked for a 15‑year sentence, emphasizing Han’s duty to curb presidential overreach [2]. Han’s denial of any prior knowledge and Yoon’s own trial—where prosecutors sought the death penalty—highlight the broader political stakes surrounding the legal definition of the December 2024 emergency order [2].