The special investigation by Cho Eun-seok has resulted in the additional indictment of Kim Yong-hyun for obstruction of public duty and instigation of evidence destruction.

Special prosecutor Cho Eun-seok's investigation, additional indictment of Kim Yong-hyeon on charges of obstruction of official duties and instructing evidence destruction.

On June 19, 2025, the Special Investigation Team for Insurrection led by Cho Eun-seok further indicted former Minister of Defense Kim Yong-hyun on charges of obstruction of public duty by coercion and instigation of evidence destruction. This marks the first official indictment among the three special investigations surrounding the insurrection charges, suggesting that the investigation is advancing through substantial legal processes rather than remaining a mere symbolic gesture.

Special prosecutor investigation prioritizing procedures and principles

The special prosecutor Cho Eunsuk has approached the investigation cautiously from the early stages, based on multiple clues such as the review of the martial law documents and the circumstances surrounding the omission of military reporting systems. In particular, he has consistently maintained a procedure-focused investigative method to minimize media exposure and reduce the potential for political interpretation. This is seen as a reflection of his commitment to faithfully adhere to the spirit of "neutral job performance" as required by the Special Prosecutor Act. This additional indictment is not merely an extension of the charges of insurrection rather, it establishes a new basis for legal responsibility as it has been revealed that former Minister Kim obstructed the execution of public duties and hindered evidence collection during the investigation. This is interpreted as a legitimate decision based on substantial legal principles, rather than just a means to secure justification for extending the investigation.

Conditional bail and the response of special prosecutors

Former Minister Kim was granted conditional bail by the court just before the expiration of his detention period, but he filed an appeal and a stay of execution against this decision. As a result, the effectiveness of the conditional bail has practically disappeared, raising the possibility of the suspect's unconditional release. In response, the special prosecution sought additional charges and requested a new arrest warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence and evasion of testimony. This response is sufficiently justified within ordinary criminal procedures, and especially in cases like insurrection that significantly impact the constitutional order of the state, a more stringent approach is necessary. It can be viewed as an inevitable choice to protect the public interest.

The meaning of investigation and future issues

This indictment is a symbolic turning point that shows the special prosecutor's investigation is not just a political symbol but is entering a stage of substantive law enforcement. An investigation that lacks procedural legitimacy is unlikely to gain public trust for any allegations. It is also true that the special prosecutor's emphasis on legal principles over political considerations has built a certain level of public trust. Now, attention shifts to the judiciary's judgment. The course of the investigation will change significantly based on whether the court issues additional arrest warrants or allows for release due to the expiration of existing warrants. Additionally, legal actions against other officials related to the review and reporting systems for the martial law, aside from former Minister Kim, will also serve as an important benchmark for assessing the consistency and fairness of the investigation.

Conclusion

The recent indictment and additional warrant request by Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok can be seen not merely as a repetition of simple legal procedures, but as a substantive approach to constitutional order and a minimal response to fill the gaps in the law. Regardless of political advantages or disadvantages, this choice centers on procedural legitimacy and rationality in criminal law, and is evaluated as an effort to secure both the legitimacy and effectiveness of the investigation. While the final judgment lies with the judiciary, the Special Prosecutor's actions so far demonstrate a commitment to upholding principles within the given authority, and such a cautious approach may have a positive impact on future judicial decisions.