Former President Yoon Suk-yeol attends the second special investigation, when will his re-arrest be?

Introduction: Signals Beyond 'Attendance'

In early July 2025, former President Yoon Seok-yeol stood once again in front of the special counsel's office. Dressed in a suit, his appearance upon arriving at the special counsel's office was not significantly different from that during his first investigation however, the political and legal implications of this appearance are far from the same. This second attendance is not merely a procedural fulfillment, but it could likely become the final turning point for the special counsel to determine whether to re-arrest former President Yoon. He is already being investigated for multiple charges, including treason, foreign exchange violations, and abuse of power. Since the first investigation, the special counsel has been narrowing the net, summoning former and current cabinet members, personnel from the National Police Agency, and high-ranking military officials. Among these developments, the most noticeable trend is that the charges under investigation are not simply repetitive but are increasingly expanding and becoming more concrete. The investigation is now transitioning from "clarifying the substance of the allegations" to a clearer stage of "determining criminal responsibility."

Key Allegations Discussed in the Second Attendance

The first allegation addressed in the second attendance investigation is the incident of obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant. The special prosecutor's office has determined that this investigation could be a turning point for the issuance of a warrant and has started the inquiry with the most solid and specific allegations. This is not just a simple administrative obstruction, but rather, it could establish a serious criminal charge of special obstruction of public duties, given that there was an attempt to violently refuse the arrest warrant issued by the court. Prior to the investigation, the special prosecutor summoned all key security personnel, including former Chief of Security Park Jong-joon and former Deputy Chief Kim Sung-hoon, to determine whether there were specific instructions from former President Yoon at the time. The investigation results highlight whether there was a directive not just to refuse but to deploy security personnel to physically obstruct the execution of the warrant as a central issue. If this directive is confirmed to be true, it could significantly impact the court's judgment as an attempt to undermine the rule of law using the status of a former president.

Charges of rebellion: Was it 'emergency martial law' or 'privatization of power'?

The insurrection charges that former President Yoon is denying most vehemently are in fact one of the allegations that are gaining increasing traction in the special prosecutor's investigation. In particular, it has been revealed through testimonies and documents that the declaration of a state of emergency was conducted inappropriately while failing to meet constitutional requirements, and that the procedures of the Cabinet meeting were distorted in the process. There are allegations that some Cabinet members, including Minister of Education Lee Ju-ho, who were absent from the Cabinet meeting, were excluded from the gathering because they might have been critical of the declaration of a state of emergency, leading to analyses suggesting that the Cabinet meeting was a 'controlled meeting' that only formally met the quorum. Particularly concerning is the report that the declaration of the state of emergency was written afterward. This may be seen as a post-hoc justification cloaked in the guise of an emergency situation and could be a procedural guise to conceal a serious crime of insurrection. Such circumstances could serve as key evidence proving former President Yoon’s intention to undermine the constitutional order, lending weight to the special prosecutor's assertion that this was not merely a procedural flaw but an intentional attempt to seize power.

Foreign exchange allegations: 'The instructions of a VIP that moved the military'

Another key issue that has recently emerged in the investigation is foreign exchange offenses. It has been reported that the special investigation team has secured a transcript indicating that military internal directives related to the infiltration of North Korean drones were based on a direct 'VIP directive' from former President Yoon. This can be interpreted as not merely an order from the commander-in-chief but as a situation that could suggest the provocation of war or the intentional escalation of military tensions. Furthermore, the fact that actual military actions, such as weapon modifications, accompanied this situation, and that this timing is very close to discussions on a state of emergency, implies the possibility that the foreign exchange offenses and the insurrection charges were carried out as means for the same political purpose. While the requirements for establishing foreign exchange offenses are stricter than those for insurrection, if the military internal statements and documents secured by the special investigation team back this part up, they are expected to play a very decisive role in the request for an arrest warrant.

Possibility of Arrest Warrant Application and Legal Issues

After the first investigation, the special prosecutor's office systematically adjusted the direction of the investigation. The key was to meticulously build evidence and testimonies surrounding former President Yoon. As a result, current and former cabinet members, high-ranking military officials, and security personnel have been summoned one after another, and the circumstances surrounding former President Yoon are becoming increasingly tangible. This is why analyses suggest that the so-called 'suspect encirclement' has been completed. The allegations against former President Yoon are not isolated incidents but rather a complex structure of crimes including abuse of power, obstruction of public authority, and violation of constitutional order, many of which are already defined as major crimes under criminal law. The reason the special prosecutor aims to make this investigation a turning point for re-arrest is clear. Firstly, the allegations are serious and multifaceted. Charges of treason, foreign exchange violations, obstruction of special public duties, falsification of official documents, and abuse of power are serious in themselves, as they involve the destruction of constitutional order by a former president.

What is the court's ruling?

However, the request for an arrest warrant is not automatically granted. The court considers the level of proof of the allegations, the credibility of the evidence, and the attitude of the suspect in a comprehensive manner. In particular, the status of being a former president may influence the court's judgment to some extent due to its connection with political ramifications. However, the special prosecutor's office attempted to issue an arrest warrant early on, and at that time, the reason for dismissal was the insufficient justification for 'non-cooperation in the investigation.' If sufficient compliance with the investigation, specific statements, and accumulation of evidence have been achieved through this second investigation, it can be viewed that the conditions have been established for the court to also agree on the necessity of an arrest.

Conclusion: The Resumed Countdown for Detention, at the Boundary of Politics and Law

The attendance of former President Yoon Seok-yeol at the second special investigation is not just a simple 'question and answer' session. It is essentially the process of fitting together the last puzzle piece for securing legal custody, and it can be seen as the symbolic and substantive peak of the special investigation. The special investigation has been conducting comprehensive pressure investigations since the first inquiry, and through the second inquiry, it has placed all the puzzle pieces on the table to specify criminal responsibility. The moment that puzzle is completed, the legal and political legitimacy to re-arrest former President Yoon may be established. What remains now is the special investigation's decision and the court's judgment. Whether we can hold the highest authority responsible for threatening the constitutional order will be a measure of how healthy democracy in South Korea is, going beyond just one person's issue. The 'arrest clock' surrounding former President Yoon Seok-yeol is clearly ticking again. When and how that clock's second hand will stop is a matter that the entire South Korean society needs to observe.