The second special prosecutor team, led by Kwon Chang-young, has sparked controversy by indicting Hong Jang-won, a former first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service (NIS), who previously acted as a whistleblower following the martial law declared on December 3. This decision diverges from the findings of the special prosecutor team investigating the martial law allegations, led by Jo Eun-seok, and is expected to play a significant role in evaluating the overall results of the special prosecutor's investigation based on future court rulings.
According to legal sources on August 24, the special prosecutor's office indicted Hong on August 19 for his involvement in important duties related to insurrection and violations of the National Intelligence Service Act (abuse of power).
Hong is accused of establishing contact points with the Military Counterintelligence Command and the National Police Agency regarding the martial law, as well as directing personnel dispatch to the police agency's situation room. He is also charged with explaining messages justifying the martial law to foreign intelligence agencies in South Korea and gathering domestic and international reactions to the martial law.
Previously, Hong provided crucial testimony during the impeachment trial and investigation of former President Yoon Suk-yeol after the martial law was declared. He revealed that he was instructed by Yoon to “arrest them all” and reported this to Jo, who allegedly ignored the information.
In a briefing on the investigation results, Special Prosecutor Kwon stated, “It is up to the court to determine how much to consider the contributions made in cooperating with the investigation and trial. The investigative agency does not make that decision,” adding, “We have secured a substantial amount of physical evidence related to the NIS case. We cannot avoid prosecution for this crime.”
However, the special prosecutor's decision to indict Hong while concluding that there was no organized involvement by the NIS is expected to draw significant criticism from civil society.
On August 19, Democratic Party lawmaker Yoon Geon-young raised suspicions that the NIS drafted a document in September 2024 regarding the potential exercise of counterintelligence authority during martial law and created another document in December of that year outlining the roles of various departments within the NIS following the declaration of martial law.
The National Intelligence Service Monitoring Network, composed of the Lawyers for a Democratic Society and the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, issued a statement the same day, urging a thorough investigation into the NIS's organized involvement and accountability for those involved, emphasizing that the special prosecutor's investigation is set to conclude on August 23, and any incomplete investigations should be continued by the National Investigation Agency.
Additionally, the indictment of former Army Capital Defense Command's 1st Guard Brigade commander Cho Sang-hyun, who received a commendation for instructing troops not to cross the Seogang Bridge during the martial law, contradicts the findings of the special prosecutor's investigation. The special prosecutor's office believes that Cho was involved in the insurrection by receiving orders from former Capital Defense Command chief Lee Jin-woo to “remove the lawmakers” and by supporting the Army Special Warfare Command troops.
Special Prosecutor Kim Jung-min explained, “The instruction not to cross the Seogang Bridge was exaggerated, and there was a clear directive to remove personnel from the National Assembly. While it was said that he diluted the orders from Commander Lee Jin-woo, the actions were fundamentally similar.” He added, “Although there was merit in accurately stating the illegal orders during the impeachment trial of former President Yoon, we determined that this did not warrant a suspension of prosecution.”
Park Chan-woon, a professor at Hanyang University Law School and a former member of the National Human Rights Commission, expressed on Facebook on August 20 that he does not definitively believe the indictment itself was wrong, but he cannot help but express concern based on the facts known so far. He questioned whether there was a necessity to indict the two individuals for insurrection, suggesting that if there is no compelling reason to punish them, the initial special prosecutor's judgment, which did not pursue charges, may have been more appropriate.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.