In a recent ruling, the court found former Minister of the Interior, Lee Sang-min, guilty of significantly contributing to a treasonous scheme orchestrated by former President Yoon Seok-yeol and others, which involved efforts to shut down media outlets. The court noted that despite Lee's claims of no involvement, testimonies indicated that he had indeed directed the fire and disaster management agency to execute such orders; this was deemed a critical part of the treason plan which aimed to undermine democratic institutions.

Interestingly, although Lee's sentence was set at just 7 years, a stark contrast to the 23 years imposed on former Prime Minister Han Deok-soo, legal experts are questioning the fairness of these disparate sentences. The rationale for this discrepancy appears to center on the differing responsibilities attributed to the two roles, with the Prime Minister seen as having a closer and more direct capacity to prevent such treasonous acts than a cabinet member like Lee. The court's decision also suggested that had Lee fulfilled his duties correctly, he could have averted the treasonous actions taken during a state of emergency declared by the president.

This decision has sparked debates within the legal community and could set precedents for how officials in similar positions are judged in the future, particularly in terms of accountability for their roles during crises. The case exemplifies the complexities within judicial proceedings where political implications are significant, raising questions about how justice is served in cases involving high-level government officials.