Conflicts have erupted between the second Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's team and the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team regarding the investigation of remaining cases related to the December 3 Martial Law. The disagreement centers on the reinvestigation of allegations that lawmakers from the People Power Party obstructed the arrest of former President Yoon Suk Yeol and the indictment of Cho Sung-hyun, former commander of the 1st Guard Brigade of the Army Capital Defense Command. It is unusual for special prosecutors to publicly dispute the appropriateness of investigative records and decisions.
On June 30, legal sources reported that Kwon Chang-young, head of the second Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's team, announced during a regular briefing the indictment of lawmakers Na Kyung-won, Kim Ki-hyun, Kwon Young-jin, and Yoon Sang-hyun on charges of obstructing the execution of official duties. These lawmakers are accused of actively asserting the illegitimacy of the investigation and execution of the arrest warrant for former President Yoon through social media and media interviews, thereby playing a leading role in obstructing the arrest.
The controversy arose when Kwon Chang-young publicly questioned the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's previous decision during the briefing. Kwon Young-bin, a deputy special prosecutor, explained that the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team had received a referral from the National Investigation Headquarters regarding the allegations against lawmakers but had concluded the case without a proper investigation. He stated, "There may be questions about why the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's team is investigating something that the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team did not, and I wanted to clarify that the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team did not conduct any investigation at all."
The Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team immediately countered. Cho Eun-seok, a member of the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team, issued a statement asserting that the claim that the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team had not investigated the allegations against the People Power Party lawmakers was false.
The Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team explained that they had reviewed and analyzed all evidence, including body camera footage from the scene during the execution of the arrest warrant for former President Yoon, as well as testimonies from numerous police officers involved in the execution. They had previously examined the allegations against lawmakers Na and others but concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the charges.
On the same day, the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's team reiterated the need for a reinvestigation. They stated, "The records from the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's case 2025-13 do not contain any materials that confirm whether the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team conducted additional investigations. After analyzing existing records and evidence from the Seoul Metropolitan Police, we recognized the necessity for reinvestigation and have indicted four lawmakers. We clarify that the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's position today is unrelated to our reinvestigation."
The conflict also extended to the indictment of Cho Sung-hyun. The Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's team indicated that they had confirmed evidence suggesting that Cho had relayed orders from former Army Capital Defense Command Chief Lee Jin-woo to mobilize to the National Assembly during the martial law period, leading to his indictment on charges of involvement in insurrection-related duties.
In response, the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team released a reference document detailing the rationale behind their previous decision not to indict Cho. They argued that Cho had responded passively to Lee's order to "remove lawmakers" and ultimately rejected the unconstitutional and illegal directive. They also noted that he instructed his subordinate units not to cross the Seogang Bridge, effectively rectifying the illegal situation he had caused in a short time.
The Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team emphasized that Cho's actions could be viewed as significantly contributing to the early termination of the unconstitutional and illegal martial law. They stated that, unlike other commanders who followed illegal orders, Cho's actions warranted the decision not to indict him.
The Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team also claimed that the facts used by the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's team to justify their indictment were not new. They explained that these details had already been confirmed during the investigations by the Special Investigation Headquarters and the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team, and had been repeatedly verified during the constitutional court proceedings regarding the impeachment trial of former President Yoon and the insurrection case against him. They asserted that the relevant investigative and decision-making processes had been shared with both the Special Investigation Headquarters and military investigative agencies, and that any actions taken against Cho were based on these findings.
Legal experts interpret the ongoing conflict between the two special prosecutor teams as a result of the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's team continuously re-evaluating the handling and legal judgments of the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team. The key issues in the obstruction of arrest case revolve around the thoroughness of the investigation and the verification of records, while the central focus in Cho's case is how to assess the act of relaying orders and the subsequent refusal to follow those orders.
The Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's team is also known to have indicted former National Intelligence Service Deputy Director Hong Jang-won and former Army Special Warfare Command Chief Kwak Jong-geun as suspects for their roles as whistleblowers in the insurrection-related investigations and trials. Reports suggest that the effective end date of the martial law is viewed as the date when the impeachment motion against former President Yoon was passed in the National Assembly, indicating a divergence from the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's previous assessments.
As the differences in internal judgments among investigative agencies spill into public disputes, there are concerns about potential impacts on related trials and ongoing investigations into remaining cases. However, the Comprehensive Special Prosecutor's team maintains that they have initiated reinvestigations based on a re-analysis of existing records and evidence, while the Insurrection Special Prosecutor's team stands firm in their position that they have already conducted sufficient reviews and made decisions based on legal principles.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.