Prosecutors, Police, and Corruption Investigation Agency Compete... Where Will Yoon Face Investigation for Rebellion Charges? [Impeachment Q&A]

Amid competition among the prosecution, police, and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) over the investigation into President Yoon Seok-yeol and others on charges of rebellion related to the December 3 emergency martial law incident, attention is focused on where the suspect investigation of President Yoon will take place. As investigative agencies rush to summon and question those involved in the rebellion case, concerns are being raised that suspects might choose which investigative agency to appear before.

President Yoon Suk-yeol. Photo by Yonhap News

According to the legal community on the 15th, as investigative agencies competitively proceed with the investigation, there is concern that suspects in this case may engage in a kind of 'investigative agency shopping' by selecting the agency they believe to be more favorable to themselves. In a situation where the boundaries of investigative authority are unclear, suspects responding to summons from specific agencies could effectively grant 'control' to those agencies.

Currently, the investigation into President Yoon and others is being conducted competitively by the Special Investigation Headquarters for Emergency Martial Law (Special Investigation Headquarters), which the prosecution formed by dispatching personnel from the military prosecution, the National Police Agency’s National Investigation Headquarters, the CIO, and the Ministry of National Defense’s Investigation Headquarters, collectively forming the Joint Investigation Headquarters (abbreviated as Joint Investigation Headquarters). As multiple investigative agencies conduct investigations simultaneously, competition to secure testimonies from related parties first has intensified, sometimes causing overlapping investigation schedules. Previously, former Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun and former First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won were questioned by both the CIO and the prosecution in a single day. Both appeared at the CIO for brief morning questioning and then at the prosecution in the afternoon, which caused some displeasure within the CIO.

There have been actual cases where investigative agencies conducted 'double investigations' on the same case. A representative example is the case of former prosecutor Kim Kwang-jun’s corruption, where the prosecution and police competed in investigations. In 2012, when the police, tracking hidden funds of multi-level marketing fraudster Cho Hee-pal, discovered allegations of corruption against former prosecutor Kim and began investigating, the next day the prosecution appointed a special prosecutor and launched a full-scale investigation, sparking a competition between the two investigative agencies.

The police were the first to request Kim’s appearance, but Kim responded to the prosecution’s summons. It is known that Kim’s lawyers advised him to be investigated by the prosecution, where they were affiliated, rather than the police. Ultimately, the police failed to secure key suspect testimony and lost investigative control, and the case was settled when the prosecution formally indicted Kim in December 2012 on charges of accepting bribes worth billions of won. Kim later received a confirmed prison sentence of seven years in court.

If coordination over the lead investigative agency for the rebellion charges is not established, there is speculation that President Yoon could also find himself in a situation similar to former prosecutor Kim’s case, choosing where to be investigated. The legal community largely expects President Yoon to opt for investigation by the prosecution, his home institution. However, considering Kim’s case where choosing the prosecution ultimately led to a heavy sentence, there is also analysis that President Yoon might weigh the pros and cons and select other investigative agencies such as the CIO.