Special prosecutor for internal affairs, notified to appear on July 1 - Yoon Seok-yeol counters not with investigative cooperation but with a political frame.

I. Introduction: Conflicts Surrounding Attendance – Is It a Simple Matter of Investigative Cooperation?

At the end of June 2025, the Special Counsel team led by Cho Eun-seok officially launched an investigation into former President Yoon Suk-yeol on charges of insurrection and foreign currency outflow related to the emergency decree document known as 12·3. Following the first summons investigation conducted during this process, the Special Counsel and Yoon's side are engaged in a sharp dispute over the schedule for a second appearance. In the early hours of June 29, the Special Counsel notified former President Yoon of his second appearance at 9 a.m. on June 30, right after the first investigation. In response, Yoon's side insisted that due to health issues and existing trial preparations, he could appear only after July 3. The Special Counsel adjusted the schedule slightly and informed them again for 9 a.m. on July 1, but Yoon's team opposed this change and maintained their position that "unilateral notification is illegal." This conflict is not merely a technical adjustment concerning scheduling but is an expression of a structural confrontation over the initiative and legitimacy of the investigation. The reason why Yoon's side seeks to treat the appearance schedule as a subject of negotiation is worth exploring, as well as the political calculations and the unfolding battle over the investigative framework hidden within this.

II. Body 1: The Flow of Facts in Tiki-Taka – The Development of the 'Scheduled War'

The first investigation started on the morning of June 28 and continued until dawn on June 29. The special prosecutors conducted an investigation lasting over 16 hours, and former President Yoon returned home after a lengthy consultation with his legal team. The special prosecutors promptly notified him of a second appearance scheduled for 9 AM on June 30. This schedule was arranged without prior consultation with Yoon's side, which immediately protested. The legal team stated that "due to health issues and trial schedules, it is physically impossible, and such notification of appearance without prior consultation violates the Criminal Procedure Act," requesting that the date be rescheduled to after July 3. In response, the special prosecutors issued a statement on the night of June 29, partially reflecting Yoon's side's opinion, and ultimately notified them of a delayed second summons for 9 AM on July 1. However, this was also met with Yoon's side's renewed protest, as they viewed it as a 'notification rather than a consultation.' Furthermore, the special prosecutors stated, "If the reasons for non-appearance are not accepted, we may have no choice but to proceed with compulsory procedures under the Criminal Procedure Act," suggesting the possibility of applying for an arrest warrant. Conversely, Yoon's side asserted, "There needs to be procedural consultation prior to the investigation," raising legal concerns about the methods used by the police officers dispatched by the special prosecutors. Throughout this process, the confrontation between the special prosecutors and Yoon Seok-yeol's side began to evolve from mere administrative coordination to an essential showdown of power and investigation.

III. Main Body 2: Analysis of Yoon Seok-yeol's Strategy - The Technique of Transforming Attendance Schedules into 'Politics'

The side of former President Yoon Suk-yeol's continuous demand for discussions surrounding his attendance schedule is not merely about securing time or legal responses. This represents a high-level strategy to shift from being a subject of investigation to a negotiating entity in the political sphere. First, it is an attempt to regain control over the investigation. The moment the attendance schedule is set as a subject of negotiation, the special prosecution can no longer exercise unilateral command. Through this, the former president's side is repositioned as a 'political entity capable of setting conditions' rather than merely a suspect. This is not just about scheduling negotiations it is an attempt to reconstruct the entire investigative framework. Second, it is the formation of a victim framework through the inducement of compulsory investigation. By refusing to attend while requesting a schedule renegotiation, Yoon's side is engaging in a dynamic that prompts the special prosecution to first exercise physical force. If coercive procedures such as arrest warrants are executed, the former president will be able to immediately form a narrative that "the administration is oppressing a former president." This constitutes a powerful political card that could shake the future public opinion landscape. Third, it serves as a foothold for recovering a political image. Yoon Suk-yeol garnered public support and challenged for the presidency based on the image of being a prosecutor under political pressure when he resigned as Prosecutor General in 2021. If the image of being a 'political victim' is highlighted in this investigation as well, he may secure justification for a return to politics in a similar manner. There is a complex intention to resurface as a political actor at the center of the political landscape rather than as a target of investigation by leveraging the attendance schedule.

IV. Main Body 3: The Special Prosecutor's Position and Response - Between the Legality of Investigation and Political Tensions

The special prosecution team of Jo Eun-seok is defining this case not merely as an investigation, but as an inquiry into serious threats to the constitutional order. Therefore, they believe it is necessary to clearly exercise the authority of investigation direction and notification of schedule. The special prosecution emphasizes that "the schedule for appearance is not a matter for negotiation but an issue of notification," maintaining that the procedural progress under the criminal procedure law is an inherent right of the investigative entity, unrelated to the defense rights of the suspect. This stance also serves as a defensive measure against attempts by former President Yoon's side to disrupt the investigation through the frame of 'procedural legitimacy.' However, if the special prosecution actually activates coercive measures such as arrest warrants, there exists the risk of political backlash and division of public opinion. In particular, physical coercive measures against a former president could transfer the burden of the administration in terms of public sentiment and media discourse. Although the special prosecution is in a structure that may inevitably resort to coercive measures to uphold the legality of the investigation, it faces a dilemma as this could also be a dangerous gamble in the political frame war.

V. Conclusion: The Framing War Surrounding Attendance - Not an Investigation, but a Political Arena

The conflict over the attendance schedule between former President Yoon Seok-youl and the special prosecutor's office is not simply a matter of time or technical negotiations. It is an essential clash surrounding the authority of the investigative entity and the political position of the suspect, a battlefield where the legitimacy of the investigation intersects with the justification of politics. Former President Yoon is being repositioned as a political entity beyond the status of the suspect by framing the attendance schedule as a matter of negotiation. In the process, the more the special prosecutor's office resorts to coercive measures, the more former President Yoon could be transformed into the image of a 'former president suffering from oppression by the regime.' To avoid getting entangled in this political attempt, the special prosecutor’s office emphasizes the neutrality and legitimacy of the investigation and strictly follows procedures. However, in a situation where the boundaries between politics and investigation have already blurred, their response may reach its limitations. Ultimately, the essence of this conflict is not whether he will attend, but rather who will seize 'legitimacy' in this situation, which could reshape the nature of the investigation and the future of politics. At this moment, South Korea once again stands at the intersection of power and investigation.