Concerns have emerged regarding the absence of significant military positions on the Joint Chiefs of Staff's operational map during the emergency martial law declared on December 3. This issue is linked to testimony from former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who reportedly confirmed the location of martial law troops while heading to the National Assembly. The whistleblower claims that there may have been individuals attempting to share information illegally with a limited number of people.
According to a report by Aju Economy on July 26, Kim Hyun-seok, who has participated in military command and control system development for nearly 30 years, submitted whistleblower documents to the National Investigation Agency and the second comprehensive special investigation team. He asserted that only some units were marked on the operational map during the emergency martial law, and the movements of many martial law troops were untraceable.
"We must investigate the possibility that only a very limited number of people were sharing information."
Kim explained that numerous testimonies revealed during field investigations and insurrection trials related to the emergency martial law suggest that the operational map was not functioning properly.Kwak Jong-geun, a former commander of the Special Warfare Command, testified during a meeting with lawmakers from the Democratic Party on December 6 last year that Yoon called to inquire about the location of the 707th Special Mission Battalion, recalling, "I believe it was on a secure phone. It was around the middle of the operation, but I don't remember the exact time."
In the trial concerning Yoon's insurrection charges, Major Jeon Jae-heon, the legal officer of the Special Forces, also testified that he reported troop movements to Yoon while receiving the call from Kwak, who was on duty at the Special Forces' combat control center immediately after the declaration of emergency martial law.
Kim Hyun-tae, the former head of the 707th Special Mission Battalion, also testified that they utilized a Telegram group of key personnel during the emergency martial law, indicating that they operated outside the normal command structure.
Kim stated, "The commander-in-chief should be able to verify troop locations on the operational map if the command structure is functioning normally. The fact that Yoon had to call to confirm troop locations raises questions about whether the operational map provided the necessary information."
He emphasized that the issue is not merely that troop locations were not visible, but rather why they were operated in such a manner. He pointed out that if the operational map was functioning normally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other commanders would have been able to monitor the overall troop deployment situation.
He added, "If only some troops were marked, we must also consider the possibility that the designers of the emergency martial law intended to share operational information with a very limited number of people. We need to investigate who made this decision and why, using the original documents still held by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Special Forces."
"Operating troops outside the command network could indicate rebellion under military law."
A military security expert, who requested anonymity, responded to Aju Economy's inquiry about whether troops could operate outside the command and control network during Special Forces operations by citing the December 12 military coup as a historical example.He noted that while the command and control system was not as developed in the past, troops could operate outside normal command authority by intentionally failing to respond to radio calls or reports. He stated, "If troops were operated outside the command structure with malicious intent, that would be wrong."
Other military experts also emphasized that maintaining communication is a principle of military operations, although they acknowledged that in special operations, equipment may be temporarily powered down to prevent location exposure.
A former high-ranking military official remarked, "If you can effectively operate without needing to receive reports on troop locations, one might suspect that the order to power down was to prevent the exposure of martial law troop locations, which could be tracked later. The individual involved likely understood that the martial law was illegal, so concealing troop locations may have seemed like the best option."
In the legal community, if the whistleblower's claims are confirmed, the manner in which the military command and control system was operated at that time could serve as crucial evidence in determining insurrection and rebellion charges. Attorney Byeon Geun-sik, an expert in military law, stated, "Deliberately bypassing or blocking the command and control system could be subject to charges of rebellion under military law (Article 5), insurrection under the criminal law (Article 87), and violation of orders under military law (Article 47)."
Byeon added, "If the higher command operated troops while bypassing or blocking the command network, it could serve as key evidence for establishing intent and initiation of rebellion. If combined with the purpose of violating the constitution, it could also be evaluated as part of the 'riot' described in the criminal law regarding insurrection."
He also noted that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that actions taken by the new military regime to block or neutralize legitimate command and reporting channels while mobilizing troops were deemed illegal resistance against military command and authority, referencing the December 12 military coup case (Supreme Court 96Do3376).
He concluded, "Deliberately undermining a normal command and control system is not merely a disciplinary violation but could serve as significant evidence of intent to seize command authority and violate the constitution."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.