South Korean investigators recommended on Thursday that impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol should face charges of insurrection and abuse of power in connection with his attempt to declare martial law.
The Corruption Investigation Office stated that Yoon should be charged with “leading an insurrection and abuse of power” following a 51-day probe into the ill-fated December 3 declaration.
The CIO further informed that they had requested Seoul prosecutors to press charges against Yoon Suk Yeol, accusing him of collaborating with his former defense minister and military commanders to disrupt the constitutional order by declaring martial law with the intent to incite riots and exclude state authority.
According to the investigation findings, Yoon, who is currently suspended from duties, instigated the declaration of martial law to disrupt the constitutional order, a decision that led to political chaos in South Korea. His case file, labeled as “Yoon Suk Yeol: president,” will now be transferred to prosecutors who have 11 days to determine whether to charge him, potentially leading to a criminal trial.
Yoon was apprehended last week on insurrection charges, marking the first time a sitting South Korean president has been detained in a criminal investigation. His failed martial law declaration lasted a mere six hours before being overturned by lawmakers who later impeached him, stripping him of his presidential powers.
Despite being arrested, Yoon, still retaining his role as head of state, has been uncooperative in the criminal probe, refusing to be questioned and obstructing searches and seizures by his security detail, including access to classified communication devices.
Yoon’s legal team emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough investigation adhering to legal legitimacy and due process. Meanwhile, Yoon, currently detained, appeared in court for a hearing at the Constitutional Court to determine the fate of his impeachment and presidency.
During the court session, Yoon argued that his martial law declaration was not a failure but instead ended earlier than expected. Former defense minister Kim Yong-hyun, who resigned following the incident, testified that Yoon had reluctantly initiated martial law. Yoon directly questioned the ex-defense minister about the draft of the martial law declaration, pointing out legal flaws he had noticed during its review.
Yoon then asked Kim if he remembered the situation “where we laughed as I said, let’s just leave it as it is since it (the martial law) is not feasible”.
Kim answered that he remembered that day and felt the president “wasn’t as meticulous as usual”.
Lawmaker Choi Ki-sang, who was present at the court, said he felt Yoon’s direct questioning could “influence the witnesses’ testimonies or create a sense of psychological pressure for them”.
“I think the court should take steps to manage or regulate direct confrontations during the questioning of the witnesses,” Choi said.
Yoon’s lawyer, Yoon Kab-keun, told reporters after the hearing that the president will “attend in person” all four hearings remaining unless there are “special circumstances”.
If the court rules against Yoon, he will lose the presidency and elections will be called within 60 days.
During the night of December 3, Yoon purportedly ordered troops to storm the National Assembly and prevent lawmakers from voting down his declaration of martial law.
The CIO said its probe found that Yoon “abused his authority by compelling police officers from the National Assembly Guard Unit and martial law forces to perform duties beyond their obligations”.
He also “obstructed the exercise of lawmakers’ rights to demand the lifting of martial law”, it added.
At a hearing earlier this week, Yoon denied instructing top military commanders to “drag out” lawmakers from parliament to prevent them from voting down his decree.