The Special Prosecutor Law on the Cheonghae Army, Rep. Kim Yong-min's brilliant move leading to Colonel Park Jung-hoon’s acquittal.

Introduction - A single line that quietly changes the world

In July 2025, a small but symbolic scene unfolded in the South Korean judicial system. Colonel Park Jeong-hoon, the head of the Marine Corps investigation unit, was on trial for 'insubordination' when the special prosecutor abruptly withdrew the appeal, confirming his acquittal. This event, which declared him not guilty despite previously being branded as a person who rejected military orders, is noteworthy in itself, but one specific provision that made this decision possible carries even greater significance. It is Article 6, Section 1, Subsection 1 of the Special Prosecutor Act designed by Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min. This provision allows the special prosecutor to decide whether to maintain charges in ongoing trials. While it may seem like an ordinary legal clause, the ripple effect it has had in reality is by no means small. That one line changed Colonel Park Jeong-hoon's fate and even touched the structure of judicial fairness. Although laws are often perceived as struggling to keep up with reality, this case demonstrates that law can indeed lead reality and serve as a tool to revive justice. This essay will explore how this hidden provision in the Special Prosecutor Act restored justice and how tailored legislation reshaped the flow of judicial fairness. We will slowly trace how a quietly inserted line transformed the structure and upheld principles.

The background of the case - A single truth divided into three branches.

The Cha Hae-byeong incident originally started as an internal military case involving the death of a soldier during training. However, this case quickly branched out into three separate paths, each entering different legal procedures. The first is the incident surrounding the immediate circumstances of the death, in which Colonel Lim Seong-geun, who was the superior at the time, was identified as a suspect. The second involves allegations of external pressure during the investigation, in which former President Yoon Seok-yeol, who was the president at the time, was named as a suspect. Lastly, the third case involves Colonel Park Jeong-hoon, who was in charge of the investigation and was charged with insubordination. These three cases are essentially fragments surrounding a single truth. To determine who evaded responsibility, who attempted to cover it up, and who sought to reveal the truth, one must look at all three cases concurrently to understand the full context. However, the timelines of the judicial system flow at different rates. Particularly, the insubordination case of Colonel Park Jeong-hoon was already well underway, causing it to operate independently from the other two cases. The provision created to rectify this structural imbalance is Article 6, Section 1, Item 1 of the Special Investigation Act. This provision allows the special prosecution to decide whether to continue or halt the prosecution even if there is an ongoing trial. The ability to pause the trial of Colonel Park Jeong-hoon was made possible by this provision.

The hidden line - the power of Article 6, Section 1, Subsection 1 of the Special Prosecutor Act.

The provision explicitly grants the special prosecutor the authority to dismiss charges or withdraw appeals in ongoing trials. This is an extremely rare piece of legislation. Typically, special prosecutors are often responsible for new investigations or prosecutions, and they have limited involvement in cases that have already been indicted and brought to trial. However, this provision breaks that norm, acknowledging the reality that the timelines of justice and investigations do not always align. Representative Kim Yong-min stated that the provision originated from the awareness that 'the three cases are intertwined around the same truth and should reach a single conclusion.' If this provision did not exist, it is highly likely that Colonel Park Jeong-hoon would have been convicted and punished before the special prosecutor's conclusion was reached. Whether his efforts as the investigation team leader to uncover some erroneous truth were justified would have been proven much later. Ultimately, this provision is not merely about changing legal procedures it served as an institutional safeguard that made a fair judgment regarding an individual's honor and truth possible. A quietly inserted line became the decisive force that upheld justice.

Custom Legislative Strategy - The Legal Weapon Granted to Each Special Prosecutor

Representative Kim Yong-min stated in an interview, "Tailor-made provisions were included for each special investigation." This signifies that the special investigation law was not a generic piece of legislation but a form of 'strategic legislation' meticulously adjusted according to the nature of the case. In the case of the insurrection special investigation, a provision for the possibility of public and live broadcasting of the trials was included, considering the concerns that all trials could proceed unofficially. This was a measure aimed at countering movements seeking to conduct trials unofficially, such as with 'Judge Ji Gwi-yeon.' It was legislation aimed at ensuring transparency in trials. In the special investigation regarding Kim Geon-hee, the key provision was the suspension of the statute of limitations related to violations of the Public Official Election Act. Violations of this law typically have a structure where the statute of limitations expires unless charges are filed shortly after the election. Taking this into consideration, it was designed so that the statute of limitations would be suspended while the special investigation was ongoing. The special investigation regarding Chae Hae-byeong included provisions, as previously mentioned, allowing for the dismissal of charges and withdrawal of appeals. This was aimed at resolving the structural problem where ongoing trials and investigations could clash. These tailor-made provisions were not merely legal technicalities but a 'legal strategy' to rectify judicial imbalances and move toward a just conclusion. This serves as another example demonstrating that legislation is indeed a practical means of realizing justice.

A Turning Point for Judicial Justice - The Effects of Public Trials and Broadcasting

The new special prosecution law does not simply intervene in the trial process but also redesigns the 'format and procedures' of trials. A particularly important provision is the clause allowing for public trials and broadcast coverage. This clause directly challenges the traditional practice of non-disclosure in the judiciary. Previously, trials often operated informally on the grounds of being 'unrelated to public interest.' However, this special prosecution law mandates that, in cases of significant public interest, trials must be conducted publicly and allows for broadcast coverage in principle. While coverage can be restricted at the court's discretion in exceptional cases, public access is legally specified as an 'obligation.' This is a decisive measure to restore the rights of the press and the public to monitor and assess judicial processes. By enabling the public to directly observe the truths unfolding in the courtroom, it plays a crucial role in restoring trust in the judiciary.

Justice is not a coincidence, but the result of design.

This special prosecution case clearly shows that justice does not come by chance, but is realized through intentional and precise legal design. In particular, the travel ban on former Blue House secretary Lee Si-won is noteworthy. Lee Si-won was the lead prosecutor in the past Seoul city public servant espionage fabrication case and had directly confronted lawmaker Kim Yong-min in that case. He later rose to a high position and remained in a legal gray area, but ultimately came under the investigation of the Chae Hae-byeong special prosecution, leading to the implementation of the travel ban. This reflects a determination not to repeat past injustices, as well as demonstrating how legal design can institutionally control specific individuals.

Conclusion - The weight of definition lies in the design

The recent case of the special prosecutor regarding the Marine Corps should not be remembered merely as an event where a single trial result was overturned. It serves as a model of 'legal politics' that demonstrates how intricately designed the language of law can be and how such design can alter reality. Article 6, Clause 1, Item 1 of the Special Prosecutor Act changed the fate of Colonel Park Jeong-hoon and, moreover, redrew the baseline of judicial justice. Tailored provisions were meticulously designed for each case, forming the basis for securing the public's right to know and ensuring judicial transparency. Justice is not a declaration but a design. Depending on how the law is created and how it operates, some individuals may escape from injustice while others cannot evade their responsibilities. This Special Prosecutor Act is an excellent example of how meticulous and reality-oriented such designs can be. Moving forward, we must question not only 'what laws are necessary' but also 'how laws should be designed to achieve justice.' Justice always flows through the law.