SEOUL — South Korea’s highest court is coming under intense public scrutiny as procedural delays threaten to release two high-profile defendants convicted of involvement in the December 3 insurrection before their final appeals are concluded.

Han Duck-soo, who received a 15-year prison sentence in his appellate trial, and Lee Sang-min, sentenced to 9 years, face upcoming expirations of their legal detention periods. Han is set to be released around November 20, while Lee’s detention expires on December 18. Critics and legal observers have expressed alarm that core figures implicated in the historic insurrection may walk free pending a final Supreme Court verdict.

The controversy centers on the Supreme Court's handling of the cases after they were transferred to the full bench in August under the designation of high national importance. Despite the gravity of the charges, the full bench has convened only once for deliberations over a three-month span, with a second session scheduled merely a day before Han's detention expires.

Legal experts point out that the core legal definitions surrounding insurrection were firmly established during landmark 1997 rulings involving former presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, suggesting the legal framework requires little groundbreaking interpretation. Moreover, special prosecutor guidelines recommend concluding supreme court appeals within three months of appellate rulings—a timeline that has already been stretched past standard thresholds.

Public frustration has also been fueled by perceived inconsistencies in how the court manages its schedule. Critics have drawn comparisons to a swift full bench ruling last year that concluded in a matter of days, contrasting it with the current pace. Additionally, a pending re-appeal regarding a judge recusal motion involving another key figure, Choi Sang-mok, has remained unresolved for over five months.

As the Supreme Court prepares for its upcoming sessions, civic groups and legal watchdogs are urging the judiciary to accelerate its review process or transparently outline a timeline to restore public confidence in the nation's accountability mechanisms.

[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]