▲ Cho Eun-seok, Special Counsel for the Insurrection Case, and Kwon Chang-young, Comprehensive Special Counsel
The special counsel team led by Cho Eun-seok, tasked with investigating the insurrection case, has released an official statement expressing disagreement with the second comprehensive special counsel team led by Kwon Chang-young, which is investigating remaining cases related to the three major special counsel probes. The conflict arose after the comprehensive special counsel team booked Cho Sung-hyun, former commander of the 1st Guard Command of the Capital Defense Command, on charges of participating in critical missions of an insurrection.
The move is seen as the comprehensive special counsel team effectively overturning the judgment made by the insurrection special counsel team, which had previously conducted the relevant investigation, bringing the friction between the two sides to the surface.
In a press notice issued today (June 30), the insurrection special counsel team provided a detailed explanation of its investigation and the subsequent decision to drop the charges against former commander Cho.
The insurrection special counsel team stated that former commander Cho had responded passively to orders from former Capital Defense Commander Lee Jin-woo to "drag out the lawmakers," and ultimately refused the former commander's unconstitutional and illegal orders. The team noted, "He removed the illegal situation he had caused himself within a short period of time."
The team added that it decided not to book (indict) former commander Cho, considering the need to evaluate his actions, which differed from other military commanders who followed the illegal orders, as well as the principle of equity with other involved parties.
The insurrection special counsel team emphasized, "The facts related to the investigation and the decision-making process were shared with both the prosecution's special investigation headquarters and the military investigative agencies that participated in the insurrection special counsel's investigation," adding, "The military's measures regarding former commander Cho were also based on these investigation results."
On the other hand, the comprehensive special counsel team booked former commander Cho on charges of participating in critical missions of an insurrection, concluding that he had indeed relayed the former Capital Defense Commander's order to deploy troops to the National Assembly to his subordinates.
The insurrection special counsel team also directly rebutted the comprehensive special counsel team's position regarding allegations that People Power Party lawmakers obstructed the arrest of former President Yoon Suk Yeol.
In a separate press notice, the insurrection special counsel team pointed out, "The remarks by an official from the comprehensive special counsel team that 'the insurrection special counsel did not investigate anything' regarding the case of People Power Party lawmakers obstructing the arrest of former President Yoon are not true."
The insurrection special counsel team emphasized, "We reviewed and analyzed all evidence, including bodycam footage from the scene captured by investigative agencies such as the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) at the time of the arrest warrant execution, as well as videos from media outlets and YouTubers who broadcasted the scene," adding, "We also made our decision based on the law after reviewing and analyzing statements heard from multiple police officers who participated in the warrant execution."
During a regular briefing held on the afternoon of June 29, the comprehensive special counsel team announced that it had booked People Power Party lawmakers Kim Gi-hyeon, Kwon Young-jin, and Yoon Sang-hyun on charges of obstruction of justice, following the booking of lawmaker Na Kyung-won, in connection with the alleged obstruction of former President Yoon's arrest.
The insurrection special counsel team, which had previously investigated the case, had dismissed the charges after receiving complaints against lawmaker Na and others, concluding that the allegations were not substantiated after examining the facts.
The comprehensive special counsel team explained that it decided to reinvestigate because "the analysis of secured evidence, such as footage, confirmed the need to investigate facts that were not sufficiently clarified during the insurrection special counsel's investigation."
Kwon Young-bin, an assistant special counsel who conducted the briefing, stated, "The insurrection special counsel team did not investigate anything (regarding the obstruction of arrest allegations)."
Following the insurrection special counsel team's official rebuttal today, the comprehensive special counsel team issued a press notice stating, "There were no materials in the case records to verify whether the insurrection special counsel had conducted additional investigations," and added, "We reopened the investigation after analyzing police investigation records and all related evidence."
Critics suggest that this is an implicit admission that a key official, the assistant special counsel, made a false and definitive claim that "the insurrection special counsel did not do anything" without even clearly grasping whether another independent investigative agency had conducted additional probes.
The comprehensive special counsel team has previously reached different conclusions from the insurrection special counsel team in several cases.
The comprehensive special counsel team had previously booked individuals who acted as 'whistleblowers' and assisted in the insurrection-related investigations and trials, such as Hong Jang-won, former first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service, and Kwak Jong-geun, former commander of the Army Special Warfare Command, as suspects.
Regarding Lee Eun-woo, former president of the Korea TV (KTV), who was already on trial after being indicted by the insurrection special counsel team on charges including abuse of power, assistant special counsel Kwon Young-bin—who caused controversy with his briefing remarks—took over the investigation and applied new charges of insurrection propaganda. However, despite the symbolism of it being the 'first arrest warrant request,' the team faced a lackluster result as the court dismissed the request, stating that "there is room for dispute over whether a crime was committed."
Some are concerned that this series of situations could have a negative impact on the ongoing insurrection-related trials resulting from indictments by the insurrection special counsel team and other previous investigative agencies.
In fact, it has been reported that some military officials who were scheduled to appear as witnesses in the insurrection-related trials have withdrawn their testimonies following the launch of the comprehensive special counsel team's investigation.
It is reported that within the insurrection special counsel team, there is a sense of displeasure, with some stating that "the comprehensive special counsel team, which sought advice and discussed cooperation on investigation methods at the beginning of its launch, has violated professional ethics."
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.