Prosecution caves, transfers Yoon's insurrection case to CIO

Home > National > Politics

Prosecution caves, transfers Yoon's insurrection case to CIO

Published: 19 Dec. 2024, 15:25 Updated: 19 Dec. 2024, 16:08

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

A view of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials' headquarters building in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi. [NEWS1]

The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office announced its decision to transfer the case involving insurrection charges against President Yoon Suk Yeol and former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min related to the Dec. 3 martial law crisis to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO).

Oh Dong-woon, the head of the CIO, and Lee Jin-dong, the deputy prosecutor general of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, reached the agreement during a face-to-face meeting Wednesday. They discussed the CIO's demand for full transfer of all insurrection-related cases and ways to resolve overlapping investigations.

Oh invoked Article 24 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials to make a final demand, which the prosecution accepted.

Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung made the decision to transfer the case of President Yoon’s alleged role as the ringleader of the insurrection to the CIO, despite opposition from key figures, including Park Se-hyun, head of the prosecutions’ special investigation headquarters.

Tuesday’s agreement between the two parties resolved the controversy over overlapping investigations that had arisen as the prosecution, police and CIO simultaneously issued subpoenas for the sitting president.

“Discussions were held regarding the CIO’s request for the transfer of cases, including measures to prevent overlapping investigations,” said the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office after the meeting. “The prosecution will transfer the cases involving President Yoon Suk Yeol and former Minister Lee Sang-min to the CIO, while the CIO will withdraw its transfer requests for the remaining suspects.”

Oh Dong-woon, head of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, speaks at the National Assembly complex in Yeouido, western Seoul on Dec. 9. [KIM SEONG-RYONG]

While the CIO will lead the investigation into Yoon and Lee, cases that the prosecution’s special investigation headquarters had already made significant progress on, such as those involving former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, will remain under the prosecution’s jurisdiction.

For Yoon, this means he avoided the politically sensitive situation of being summoned by the prosecution, his former agency, but now faces an investigation by the CIO — a body he vowed to dismantle during his presidential campaign in February 2022.

The CIO now has the exclusive authority to investigate Yoon as the primary figure in the Dec. 3 martial law insurrection case.

However, significant challenges remain for the investigative body. Within the CIO, questions have been raised about whether the agency is equipped to handle the case. In contrast, the prosecution’s special investigation headquarters, which reluctantly handed over the case, has reportedly expressed strong discontent.

Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung takes a pledge at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul on Oct. 21. [KANG JUNG-HYUN]

On Dec. 8, when the CIO first exercised its case transfer authority, the prosecution initially resisted and opted to continue its direct investigation, arresting former Defense Minister Kim on the same day and obtaining his detention warrant on Dec. 10.

Although Article 24 of the CIO Act mandates compliance with the chief of the CIO’s transfer requests, the lack of specific details on timelines or procedures allowed the prosecution to delay. Even after the CIO set Dec. 13 as the initial transfer deadline, the prosecution escalated its efforts, arresting the chief of the Capital Defense Command Lee Jin-woo the same day.

By Dec. 17, all military leaders implicated in Yoon's declaration of martial law were issued arrest warrants, including head of Defence Counterintelligence Command Yeo In-hyung, Army Chief of Staff Park An-su and head of Special Warfare Command Kwak Jong-keun. They also issued a second summons for Yoon to appear by Dec. 21.

At this point, the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that the investigation had gathered “considerable evidence” supporting the insurrection charges. In response, the CIO issued a final ultimatum on Dec. 14, demanding the transfer of the martial law-related cases by Dec. 18.

At the meeting held on the transfer deadline, Oh said, “If the prosecution fails to comply with the CIO Act’s case transfer provision, their ongoing investigation will be deemed unlawful, rendering all evidence and testimony obtained through it invalid.” This assertion led the prosecution to reluctantly comply.

Park Se-hyun, head of the prosecution's special investigative unit, speaks at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office at Seocho District, southern Seoul on Dec. 8. [YONHAP]

“If the CIO insists on the transfer, we have no way to resist,” a prosecution official said. “Noncompliance would constitute a direct violation of the CIO Act and could result in legal risks, including challenges to the admissibility of evidence.”

Concerns within the prosecution persist about the CIO’s ability to handle the case effectively. Critics argue that the CIO’s lack of authority to indict a sitting president could hinder swift investigations, as the case must eventually be sent back to the prosecution for indictment review.

If the prosecution deems the CIO’s investigation incomplete, further complications could arise, necessitating either supplementary investigation by the CIO or direct reinvestigation by the prosecution. Similar conflicts have occurred before, one example being the graft case involving a Grade 3 official at the Board of Audit and Inspection last year, where disputes over supplemental investigations led to delays.

Within the prosecution, some argue that handing over the case to a third-party agency like the CIO might be preferable, even if it involves challenges.

“Regardless of how the prosecution handled the investigation and indictment, it would have faced criticism from both ruling and opposition parties for either favoring the president, a former prosecutor or being excessively harsh to protect the institution,” said an official from the prosecution. “Entrusting the case to the CIO may mitigate such political backlash.”

BY KIM MIN-YOUNG [[email protected]]