On September 23, the day after taking office, Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul made his first field visit to the Army's 25th Infantry Division in Paju, Gyeonggi Province. The 25th Division is where three soldiers, including a reconnaissance battalion commander, were recently injured in two suspected landmine explosions during an operation to clear a patrol path in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).

However, an unexpected controversy erupted following his visit. Minister Kang's attire became a subject of debate. Critics questioned whether it was appropriate for the head of the Ministry of National Defense to visit frontline troops where soldiers had been injured wearing a gray business suit instead of a military uniform.

This issue was also raised at a plenary meeting of the National Assembly's National Defense Committee on September 29.


Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul explained his choice based on "regulations." He stated that because the defense minister is a civilian rather than an active-duty service member, he cannot wear a military uniform under existing regulations.

Yet this explanation sparked another controversy. Following that logic, it seemed to imply that all previous defense ministers had broken the law. In response, Minister Kang countered that most of his predecessors had also visited in civilian clothing.


What do the legal provisions actually state? And what did previous ministers wear when visiting military units—specifically frontline units?

The SBS Fact Check team closely examined everything from the exact regulations to historical practices.


First, we checked the Constitution.

The defense minister is a member of the State Council. The Constitution stipulates that active-duty military personnel cannot be appointed as State Council members.

Therefore, it is correct that the defense minister holds civilian status.


What about civilians wearing military uniforms? As the controversy grew, the Ministry of National Defense explained to the press: "As regulations dictate that non-military personnel must not wear military uniforms or use or carry military equipment, it is legally correct for the defense minister not to wear a military uniform."

Upon checking, such a statute does exist. The Act on the Regulation of Military Uniforms and Military Equipment (Military Uniform Control Act) prohibits in principle non-military personnel from wearing military uniforms.


Looking strictly at the legal text, the answer is relatively clear. A civilian defense minister not wearing an official military uniform aligns with statutory principles.

Does this mean that previous defense ministers, who appeared to visit frontline units in military attire, all violated the law?

Here lies an important distinction: whether the garment commonly referred to as a "defense minister's uniform" legally qualifies as a "military uniform."

First, let us look at past visits by former defense ministers.


In the photos, they are wearing business attire with an olive-drab field jacket layered on top. When the SBS Fact Check team reviewed photos of incumbent defense ministers inspecting units on the Defense Ministry's blog, their attire was remarkably similar.

However, some interpret that the field jackets worn by former ministers cannot be viewed as the same "military uniform" defined by law.
 
Indeed, the legal concept of a uniform under the Military Uniform Control Act includes rank insignia. However, the field jackets worn by past defense ministers do not have rank insignia. Instead, they feature a title tag reading "Minister of National Defense" or a ministry emblem. While the principle remains that defense ministers do not wear official military uniforms due to their civilian status, wearing an olive-drab field jacket during unit inspections or field visits has served as an established practice.

Therefore, in a strict sense, saying that "past defense ministers visited units wearing military uniforms" may not be entirely accurate.


Yet it is also difficult to view this garment merely as an ordinary jacket. There are distinct reasons why defense ministers have worn field jackets.

Professor Choi Byung-wook explained, "Past defense ministers wore field jackets due to a combination of factors: the symbolism of being the top defense official, fostering a sense of unity and shared identity with troops in the field, the practical utility of conducting on-site guidance, and operational security to minimize visibility to the enemy along the barbed-wire fences." While not legally a uniform, it served a symbolic function similar to one in the field. This is why the media has conventionally described past ministers as "visiting units in military attire."

Of course, whether it was appropriate for Minister Kang to visit the site in a business suit without a field jacket—the question of "attire appropriateness"—falls within the realm of subjective judgment and cannot be fact-checked. Nor does it seem to be an issue that can be decided solely by the letter of the law. Even as a civilian, the defense minister exercises administrative and operational command over the military under presidential orders. Some hold the political view that failing to wear attire reflecting solidarity with troops, particularly at a site where soldiers were injured, was inappropriate. In this view, it is a matter of consideration rather than strict adherence to principle.


Synthesizing these discussions, the SBS Fact Check team rates the claim that "the defense minister is not supposed to wear a military uniform under regulations" as "Mostly True." The principle itself—that a civilian defense minister cannot wear an official uniform—is accurate.

However, as noted, this legal principle is not the entire picture. Political and symbolic considerations, such as showing solidarity with service members during site visits or projecting leadership as the top defense authority, also remain significant factors.


In particular, the Ministry of National Defense contributed to fueling unnecessary controversy by repeatedly shifting its explanations without clearly defining what constitutes a "military uniform." When reporters initially asked why Minister Kang wore a suit, the ministry stated that an immediate field inspection was urgent right after his inauguration. Later, it took a definitive stance, asserting that "it is proper for the defense minister not to wear a uniform because he is a civilian." This naturally invited counterarguments asking, "Does that mean all previous defense ministers broke the law?" The situation became further entangled when Minister Kang personally asserted that past ministers also wore civilian clothes.

Beginning on the wrong foot complicated the explanations, ultimately turning the matter into a symbolic example of how a minor issue can snowball into an exhausting debate.
 
(Writer: Kim HYOJIN, Intern: Kim JUNGWON)