 ▲ 12·3 비상계엄 관련 내란 방조 등 혐의를 받는 한덕수 전 국무총리가 26일 서울 서초구 서울중앙지방법원에서 열린 결심 공판에 출석하고 있다. 2025.11.26. ©뉴시스 |
브레이크뉴스 정명훈 기자= 한덕수 전 국무총리가 12·3 비상계엄 사태 내란 중요임무 종사 등 혐의와 관련된 항소심에서 징역 15년을 선고받았다.
서울고법 형사12-1부(부장판사 이승철·조진구·김민아)는 7일 한 전 총리의 내란 중요임무 종사 및 내란 방조 등 혐의 항소심에서 징역 15년을 선고했다.
이는 1심의 징역 23년보다 8년 감형된 것으로, 내란 특검팀(특별검사 조은석)의 1심 구형량과 같은 수준이다.
재판부는 "국무총리로서 막중한 책무를 저버리고 내란에 가담해 죄책이 무겁다"고 밝혔다.
재판부는 한 전 총리가 1970년대 행정안전부 사무관으로 공직 생활을 시작해 1980년대 비상계엄 시기를 직접 경험한 만큼, 계엄 선포가 초래할 광범위한 피해와 혼란의 심각성을 충분히 인식하고 있었다고 지적했다.
다만 "50여 년간 공직자로 국가에 헌신한 점, 내란 행위를 사전에 모의하거나 조직적으로 주도하는 등 적극적으로 가담했다는 증거는 부족한 점 등을 고려했다"며 양형 이유를 설명했다.
한편, 한덕수 전 총리는 비상계엄 당시 국무총리로서 윤석열 전 대통령의 내란 행위를 저지해야 할 헌법상 의무를 다하지 않은 혐의로 불구속 기소됐다.
또 계엄 선포문의 법률적 하자를 보완하기 위해 사후 선포문 작성 및 폐기에 관여한 혐의와 헌법재판소의 윤 전 대통령 탄핵심판 과정에서 계엄 선포문을 인지하지 못했다는 취지로 허위 증언한 혐의도 받았다.
앞서 1심 재판부는 한 전 총리가 국무위원들에게 연락해 의사정족수를 맞추며 국무회의 형식을 갖추도록 한 점, 이상민 전 행정안전부 장관의 특정 언론사 단전·단수 지시를 중단시키지 않은 점, 계엄 선포문 서명과 사후 서명을 독려한 점 등을 근거로 내란 중요임무 종사 혐의를 유죄로 판단했다.
다만 내란죄는 다수인이 결합해 실행하는 필요적 공범 관계에 해당한다며 내란 방조 혐의는 인정하지 않았고, 허위작성공문서 행사 혐의에 대해서는 무죄를 선고했다.
*아래는 위 기사를 '구글 번역'으로 번역한 영문 기사의 [전문]입니다. '구글번역'은 이해도 높이기를 위해 노력하고 있습니다. 영문 번역에 오류가 있을 수 있음을 전제로 합니다.<*The following is [the full text] of the English article translated by 'Google Translate'. 'Google Translate' is working hard to improve understanding. It is assumed that there may be errors in the English translation.>
Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo Sentenced to 15 Years in Second Trial on 'Insurrection Charges'... Court Says "Gargment is Heavy"
Former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was sentenced to 15 years in prison in his appeal trial regarding charges including engaging in key duties related to insurrection during the December 3rd state of emergency.
On the 7th, the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 12-1 (Presiding Judges Lee Seung-cheol, Cho Jin-gu, and Kim Min-ah) sentenced former Prime Minister Han to 15 years in prison in the appeal trial regarding charges of engaging in key duties related to insurrection and aiding and abetting insurrection.
This represents an 8-year reduction from the 23-year sentence handed down in the first trial and is at the same level as the sentence requested by the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Team (Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok) in the first trial.
The court stated, "His culpability is heavy as he abandoned his grave duties as Prime Minister and participated in the insurrection."
The court pointed out that since former Prime Minister Han began his public service career as an official at the Ministry of the Interior and Safety in the 1970s and directly experienced the state of emergency in the 1980s, he was fully aware of the severity of the widespread damage and chaos that a declaration of martial law would cause.
However, explaining the reasons for sentencing, the court stated, "We considered his dedication to the nation as a public official for over 50 years, as well as the lack of evidence that he actively participated, such as by conspiring in advance or systematically leading acts of insurrection."
Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was indicted without detention on charges of failing to fulfill his constitutional duty to prevent former President Yoon Suk-yeol's acts of insurrection while serving as Prime Minister during the state of emergency.
He was also charged with involvement in the post-declaration drafting and destruction of the martial law proclamation to correct legal flaws, as well as with giving false testimony during the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial of former President Yoon, claiming that he was unaware of the proclamation.
Previously, the first-instance court found former Prime Minister Han guilty of engaging in important duties related to insurrection, citing as grounds the fact that he contacted cabinet members to ensure the quorum was met and the meeting was conducted in the form of a cabinet meeting, that he did not stop former Minister of Public Administration and Security Lee Sang-min's order to cut off electricity and water supply to specific media outlets, and that he encouraged the signing of the martial law proclamation and subsequent signing.
However, the court did not recognize the charge of aiding and abetting insurrection, stating that the crime of insurrection constitutes a necessary complicity relationship involving multiple people working together to execute it, and acquitted him of the charge of using a forged official document.
