The Seoul Central District Court sentenced Lee Sang-min, the former Minister of the Interior and Safety of South Korea, to seven years in prison for his involvement in critical duties associated with a rebellion. Despite being deemed to have engaged more actively in the rebellion than former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who received a 23-year sentence, the court's leniency towards Lee raises questions about judicial consistency and public confidence in the legal process. The sentencing highlighted the disparities between the two cases, as both were judged under similar legal principles but resulted in starkly different outcomes that could undermine citizens' trust in legal fairness.

During the trial, it was revealed that Lee directly participated in actions aimed at crippling the legislative body's functioning and undermining media freedom. This included conducting phone calls to confirm the blockade of the National Assembly and issuing commands to cut off utilities to media outlets. The court acknowledged the gravity of these actions but surprisingly opted for a much lighter sentence, citing a lack of compelling evidence for a conspiracy or extensive participation in the rebellion. This has led to debates about whether the sentence reflects the seriousness of Lee's crimes, especially when his actions arguably posed greater threats than those of Han Duck-soo.

Critics argue that the ruling sends a troubling message that could embolden future abuses of power, especially within the realm of political authority during emergencies. The court's findings noted that Lee should have acted to protect lawmakers who aimed to lift the illegal state of emergency rather than support the maintenance of such a regime. The perception that justice is not being served equally could foster cynicism among the public towards judicial proceedings and accountability measures for political figures, sparking calls for a reassessment of how these cases are handled in the context of national security and civil rights.