Special counsel’s expanded insurrection timeline raises stakes for lawmakers who opposed Yoon’s impeachment

A special counsel team investigating former President Yoon Suk Yeol is redefining when the alleged insurrection ended, moving the endpoint from the lifting of martial law to the National Assembly's impeachment vote. The shift could expose lawmakers who opposed impeachment to insurrection allegations.

The special counsel team investigating Yoon recently sent written questionnaires to People Power Party (PPP) lawmakers asking why the party lawmakers did not participate in the first impeachment vote on Dec. 7, 2024 and what had changed by the time they participated in the second vote on Dec. 14, according to legal sources Wednesday.

The questions focused on the decision-making process surrounding the parliamentary votes, going beyond the team's original investigation into allegations that the lawmakers obstructed authorities' attempt to execute an arrest warrant for Yoon. This has raised the possibility that lawmakers who sought to block Yoon's impeachment could face allegations of involvement in the insurrection.

When the special counsel team indicted the former head of public broadcaster KTV Lee Eun-woo on Tuesday, it said it considered the insurrection to have ended on Dec. 14, 2024, when the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion against Yoon.

That differs significantly from the position taken by investigators from the prosecution's initial special investigation team through the special counsel investigating the insurrection, which regarded Dec. 4, when martial law was lifted, as the end of the insurrection.

By determining that the insurrection continued until the impeachment motion was passed, the team could potentially treat boycotting or opposing the vote as participation in the insurrection — or even as playing a key role in it.

A prosecutor who participated in the separate special counsel investigation into the insurrection questioned the reasoning.

"For it to constitute an insurrection, the state of violent uprising would have to be continued, so it is difficult to understand how the insurrection could be considered ongoing when an investigation had already begun immediately after martial law was lifted," the prosecutor said.

"If the insurrection was still ongoing after Dec. 4, then attempts to find a way for former President Yoon to remain in office or opposition to his impeachment after that point could all constitute participation in the insurrection."

The special counsel team also summoned former PPP leader Han Dong-hoon as a witness on Wednesday in an effort to determine what was discussed at a meeting among ruling party, government and presidential officials at the prime minister's residence on Dec. 4, 2024.

The questioning did not take place after Han refused to appear, saying he had "no intention of helping a politically motivated investigation." Still, the summons has fueled speculation that the special counsel is broadening the scope of its investigation to include the meeting by extending the alleged insurrection's end date.

Participants could potentially be viewed as having taken part in the insurrection, although the meeting took place after martial law was lifted, depending on what was discussed if investigators conclude that the insurrection was still underway at the time.

The investigation team's own standard, however, has not been consistent.

Last month, the team indicted and detained former Principal Deputy National Security Adviser Kim Tae-hyo on charges of playing a key role in the insurrection and abuse of authority, applying different charges to conduct before and after martial law was lifted.

Kim was charged with playing a key role in the insurrection for allegedly using the National Security Office and diplomats to explain the justification for martial law to the United States and other allies before it was lifted. For similar conduct after martial law was lifted, however, prosecutors charged him only with abuse of authority.

Meanwhile, the separate special counsel team investigating the insurrection, led by Cho Eun-suk, said Wednesday that it did not consider the alleged insurrection to have continued after emergency martial law was lifted.

"This case involved an attempt by the president to subvert the constitution through emergency martial law," the team said in a statement. "Once the military and police forces mobilized under emergency martial law were withdrawn and the lifting of emergency martial law was proclaimed, it is difficult to conclude that the objective of subverting the constitution continued, while the coercive and violent effects inherent in emergency martial law also ceased to exist."

BY JEONG JIN-HO, KIM SEONG-JIN [shin.woojin@joongang.co.kr]