South Korea’s anti-corruption agency has referred its case against impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol to prosecutors, recommending his indictment for insurrection and abuse of power tied to his brief declaration of martial law.
The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) stated it would request prosecutors to indict Mr Yoon, alleging he led an insurrection, abused his authority, and obstructed others from exercising their rights.
Mr Yoon, who was impeached and suspended from power on December 14, has been in custody since last week while investigators examine his attempt on December 3 to implement martial law—a shocking decision that was overturned by parliament within hours.
The CIO was established in 2021 as an independent anti-corruption agency to investigate high-ranking officials, including the president and their families, and has been collaborating with police and the defense ministry, while prosecutors are conducting their own investigation.
The CIO indicated that Mr Yoon’s detention is expected to end around January 28, but they anticipate prosecutors will seek to extend it by another 10 days before formally charging him.
The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office has declined to comment.
Prosecutors have already charged Mr Yoon’s then-defense minister, Kim Yong-hyun, with insurrection. Other officials indicted include chiefs of the Capital Defence Command, Defence Counterintelligence Command, as well as the Seoul police and national police commissioner.
Since his arrest on January 15—the first for a sitting South Korean president—Mr Yoon has refused to communicate with CIO investigators and has defied their summons.
Lee Jae-seung, deputy chief of the CIO, asserted it would be more “efficient” for prosecutors to take over the investigation before indicting Mr Yoon, citing the president’s lack of cooperation.
Pro-Yoon supporters and police stand off outside the Seoul Western District Court.
“Despite the serious allegations that he was the ringleader of an insurrection, he remains uncooperative and continues to disregard the criminal justice proceedings, refusing to answer our questions,” Mr Lee said during a briefing.
He mentioned that investigators had gathered testimonies from several military officials regarding Mr Yoon’s alleged attempts to arrest politicians and his mention of a second martial law order. Mr Yoon and his legal team have denied these allegations.
Mr Yoon, a former top prosecutor before his presidency, now sees his criminal case being handled by prosecutors from that same realm, although the extent of their current relationship remains uncertain.
Mr Yoon’s legal team has continually argued that the CIO lacks the authority to manage his case as the law outlines a broad list of high-ranking officials and violations it may investigate, but does not include insurrection.
They further argued that any criminal investigation should follow the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding Mr Yoon’s removal from office during its separate impeachment trial.
The lawyers reiterated their position, stating they would hold the CIO accountable for what they describe as an illegal investigation, while urging prosecutors to adhere to the law in taking over the case.
In comments made to the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, Mr Yoon denied giving orders for troops to forcibly remove politicians from parliament or for the finance minister to prepare a budget for an emergency legislative assembly.
Insurrection, the potential charge against Mr Yoon, is one of the few offenses from which a South Korean president does not enjoy immunity and is technically punishable by death; however, South Korea has not carried out an execution in nearly 30 years.
Mr Yoon arrived at another hearing at the Constitutional Court for his impeachment trial this afternoon.
Mr Yoon’s attorneys reiterated the president’s previous argument that he never intended to fully implement martial law, stating his measures were meant as a warning to resolve political deadlock.
In his first public appearance since a suicide attempt in jail last month, former defense minister Mr Kim testified at Thursday’s hearing, arguing that the limited number of troops mobilized showed Yoon was not serious about enforcing military control.
Mr Kim acknowledged that he had proposed declaring martial law to Mr Yoon on December 31, indicating that the president expressed concern and lamented that the opposition party focused solely on three issues: shielding its leader from legal consequences, impeaching government officials, and initiating special counsel investigations against Mr Yoon.
He quoted Mr Yoon as saying the opposition’s “parliamentary dictatorship and violence had spiraled out of control,” asserting there was no alternative but to declare emergency martial law.
