The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a nine-year sentence for a former lawmaker convicted of inciting rebellion in the event of a war with North Korea.

Lee Seok-ki, a key member of the now-disbanded United Progressive Party, was found guilty of inciting an armed rebellion to overthrow the government, but not guilty of plotting one.

In its ruling, the nation’s highest court drew a distinction between inciting a rebellion and plotting a rebellion. At Lee’s first trial, he was found guilty of both charges and handed a 12-year jail term. On appeal, he was found guilty only of inciting a rebellion, and was given a nine-year sentence.

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upheld that sentence, applying a strict definition of “plotting a rebellion” in finding Lee not guilty of plotting a rebellion. The prosecutors alleged that at a meeting in May 2013, about 130 members of the clandestine Revolutionary Organization and Lee discussed plans to destroy key infrastructure in South Korea in the event of an inter-Korean war. The court found that there was not enough evidence to conclude that the participants in the May meeting came to a decision on the details of the rebellion, and acquitted Lee of the conspiracy charge. Lee was found guilty on a separate charge of violating the National Security Law for sympathizing with North Korea.

The Supreme Court ruling said there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the RO, given that the proof of the group’s existence was based solely on the testimony of informants. This runs counter to the Constitutional Court’s ruling last month that acknowledged the RO’s existence and ordered the disbanding of the United Progressive Party.

The Constitutional Court’s decision was controversial due to the timing of the ruling, coming as it did before the Supreme Court ruling on Lee Seok-ki’s case. Critics charged that the Constitutional Court’s ruling was rushed to deflect public opinion from the Blue House document leak scandal raging at the time.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that the people’s basic rights and freedom of conscience and expression may become limited if mere exchanges of opinion on a crime are construed as an agreement on its execution and thus seen as constituting a conspiracy to commit crime. The Supreme Court was clearly concerned about protecting the freedoms of expression and conscience, while not condoning threats to free democracy.

The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court’s conclusions about the RO’s existence will be debated for some time to come. However, the courts’ decisions must be accepted in a democracy where the rule of law prevails.