In the first trial ruling against Lee Sang-min, former Minister of the Interior and Safety, the court sentenced him to seven years in prison for acknowledging the allegations that he attempted to cut off power and water to media outlets during the state of emergency declared on December 3. The ruling emphasized that the initial plan for these actions was formulated by former President Yoon Suk-yeol and Kim Yong-hyun. Despite the denial of any orders for power and water cuts by Yoon's camp, the court determined that there was established evidence linking Yoon's involvement in the plan, further complicating the legal situation ahead of Yoon's upcoming sentencing for separate charges related to insurrection.

The ruling highlighted the critical findings of the Seoul Central District Court, noting that there was no other individual outside of Lee who had communicated directives to the Fire Agency regarding the power and water cuts. The court referenced the established timeline in which the plans moved from Yoon to former Prime Minister Kim Dong-soo and then to Lee, supporting the claim that the initiative to cut services to media outlets originated from the presidential office. This finding places Yoon in a compromised legal position, especially as another court is independently considering similar allegations against him for participating in insurrection-related activities.

As the judicial proceedings unfold, the court's assessment of the testimonies presented, particularly that of Fire Agency Chief Heo Seok-gon, contrasts sharply with Lee’s claims. The court found Heo's testimony to be more credible, calling for a contextual interpretation of the statements made during the trial. This conviction may have broader implications in the ongoing investigations and legal evaluations surrounding the actions of leadership during politically tumultuous periods in South Korea, especially given the serious nature of the accusations leveled against the former president and his associates.