SEOUL, South Korea – The Special Counsel team investigating the December 3rd martial law declaration and related allegations of rebellion and foreign interference (led by Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok) is actively considering measures to secure the person of former President Yoon Suk-yeol. The team is expected to decide as early as this week whether to seek an arrest warrant for Yoon or to issue a third summons for questioning.

According to legal sources, the Special Counsel conducted a second round of questioning with former President Yoon on July 5th, following his initial summons on June 28th. Yoon arrived at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office entrance at 9:00 AM on July 5th and departed around 11:50 PM, approximately 14 hours and 50 minutes later. Excluding meal breaks, the actual questioning time on this occasion amounted to a substantial 8 hours and 28 minutes.

The Special Counsel team reportedly interrogated Yoon on the majority of the charges against him. These include:

Obstruction of Special Public Duties: Allegations that Yoon obstructed the execution of arrest warrants issued by the police and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) against himself.
Abuse of Authority by Instigation (under the Presidential Security Service Act): Accusations of ordering the deletion of non-public phone records of individuals involved in the martial law declaration.
Abuse of Authority Against Cabinet Members: Allegations concerning the December 3rd emergency martial law declaration and its related cabinet meetings.
Fabrication of Public Documents: Charges related to his involvement in the ex-post facto drafting of the martial law proclamation.
North Wind Operation: Suspicions of general treason or inducing foreign currency, referring to alleged manipulation of public opinion concerning North Korea for political gain.
Among these, the Special Counsel is reportedly examining whether the charges of obstruction of special public duties, abuse of authority by instigation (under the Presidential Security Service Act), and fabrication of public documents meet the criteria for an arrest warrant.

Under Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act, courts determine whether to issue an arrest warrant based on factors such as the risk of evidence destruction, flight, the gravity of the crime, and the likelihood of re-offense. Given the serious nature of the allegations against former President Yoon and the "bulldozer" reputation of Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok, known for his background in special investigations during his time as a prosecutor, there is speculation that the Special Counsel team may decide on the arrest warrant as early as this week.

Some analysts suggest that the Special Counsel's failure to notify Yoon's side of a "third summons" immediately after the second round of questioning indicates a consideration of an arrest warrant. In contrast, after the first summons, the Special Counsel promptly informed Yoon's representatives of the second summons.

A legal community official stated, "Considering public sentiment, it would be unusual for the Special Counsel not to consider requesting an arrest warrant. If the team determines that a third summons is unnecessary, there's a not insignificant chance they could seek an arrest warrant this week."

A Special Counsel official commented, "Whether to request an arrest warrant is a matter that must be decided after thoroughly reviewing all the details from the second round of questioning. As of [the night of July 5th], it is difficult to give a definitive answer."

 
The legal and political implications of this decision are profound. A request for an arrest warrant for a former president is an exceptionally rare and high-stakes move in South Korean legal history, typically reserved for the most serious offenses with compelling evidence and significant flight risk or likelihood of evidence tampering. The Special Counsel's ongoing investigation into the December 3rd martial law declaration stems from a controversial period where the then-President Yoon Suk-yeol, amidst a tumultuous political climate, declared emergency martial law. This declaration was met with widespread public outcry and protests, leading to its swift retraction. The subsequent investigation aims to uncover whether the declaration constituted an act of rebellion and if any high-ranking officials abused their power in its implementation or cover-up.

The charges Yoon faces, particularly those related to obstruction of justice and abuse of authority, carry significant weight. The allegation of obstructing arrest warrants, if proven, suggests a direct attempt to impede legal processes. Similarly, the charge of ordering the deletion of communication records highlights a potential effort to destroy evidence, a crucial factor in determining the necessity of an arrest warrant. The "North Wind Operation" accusation, if substantiated, would point to an attempt to manipulate national security issues for political gain, further escalating the gravity of the charges.

The Special Counsel team, led by Cho Eun-seok, is under intense public and media scrutiny. Cho's reputation as a "bulldozer" prosecutor implies a readiness to pursue investigations rigorously, irrespective of the political stature of the individuals involved. This background suggests that the decision on an arrest warrant will be based on a thorough assessment of legal merits rather than political expediency. However, the decision will inevitably have significant political repercussions, potentially deepening divisions within the country.

The absence of an immediate third summons notification is a key indicator being analyzed by legal experts. Typically, if investigators believe further questioning is necessary to gather more information or clarify discrepancies, they would issue another summons. The fact that this did not happen immediately after the extensive second questioning session suggests that the Special Counsel may have gathered sufficient information to make a decision regarding an arrest warrant, or that they believe further voluntary cooperation from Yoon is unlikely to yield new significant information.

The court's criteria for issuing an arrest warrant, as outlined in Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act, will be the ultimate legal benchmark. The Special Counsel will need to present compelling evidence demonstrating a concrete risk of Yoon fleeing the country, destroying evidence, or committing further crimes. Given Yoon's status as a former head of state, the bar for demonstrating these risks will be exceptionally high. Public sentiment will also play an unofficial, yet influential, role in the proceedings. The Korean public has a strong interest in accountability for high-level political figures, especially concerning actions that touched upon the foundations of democracy.

The coming week will be critical in determining the trajectory of this high-profile investigation. Whether the Special Counsel opts for an arrest warrant or a third summons, the decision will mark a significant moment in South Korean legal and political history, setting a precedent for how former leaders are held accountable for their actions. The nation watches closely as the Special Counsel team finalizes its deliberations.