“Cutting power and water to media outlets is an act of insurrection”: Yoon’s interior minister sentenced to 7 years in prison

Former Interior and Safety Minister Lee Sang-min, who was charged with ordering the suspension of electricity and water services to five media outlets during the December 3 emergency martial law declaration, was sentenced on the 12th to seven years in prison in his first trial on charges of participating in key roles in an insurrection.

The Criminal Division 32 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Ryu Kyung-jin) ruled that Lee received a document from former President Yoon Suk-yeol outlining plans to blockade the National Assembly and to cut off utilities to media organizations, and that it was reasonable to conclude Lee issued specific operational instructions to then–Fire Commissioner Heo Seok-gon. The court determined that Lee had engaged in a major role in the insurrection.

The court first found that Yoon’s declaration of emergency martial law constituted the crime of insurrection. It held that dispatching military and police forces to blockade the National Assembly on the day of the declaration demonstrated an intent to obstruct the exercise of the legislature’s constitutional authority—thus fulfilling the requirement of “intent to overthrow the constitutional order.”

The court further stated that there was sufficient evidence of a document detailing plans to seal off major institutions and to suspend electricity and water to specific media companies. The document reportedly listed the institutions to be blocked and the timing of deployments by military and police forces, amounting to a concrete operational plan for insurrection by Yoon and then–Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, among others.

A key element of the charges against Lee concerned a phone call he made at approximately 11:37 p.m. on the night of the martial law declaration, during which he allegedly asked Commissioner Heo whether police had requested cooperation regarding power and water cutoffs, and instructed him to “cooperate and take appropriate measures” if such requests were received. The court found that this constituted a specific operational directive concerning utility suspensions to media outlets.

Commissioner Heo testified that during the call, Lee quickly listed the names of the media organizations targeted for service suspension, prompting him to ask for repetition several times. The court cited this as evidence that Lee had indeed issued the directive.

Lee’s defense argued during trial that he had not conspired in advance to declare martial law and that he did not recognize it as unconstitutional or illegal at the time. The court rejected these claims.

In its ruling, the court stated that Lee and former President Yoon’s actions ignored constitutionally mandated procedures and sought to paralyze the functioning of state institutions, including the National Assembly, through coercive means. The court described the conduct as fundamentally undermining the core values of democracy and warranting severe punishment.

The court also noted that there was no evidence Lee actively sought to dissuade Yoon from pursuing insurrection, and that he attempted to conceal the truth through false testimony, increasing his culpability. However, it acknowledged that there was no evidence Lee had premeditated the martial law declaration in advance or had repeatedly issued directives to cut utilities, and cited these factors in determining the sentence.