Yoon prepared martial law plan as early as October 2023: special counsel

A special investigation team has concluded that former President Yoon Suk Yeol began preparing for his declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024, more than a year in advance. According to the team's report, the groundwork was laid as early as October 2023.

The special probe, led by special counsel Cho Eun-seok, released its final findings on Monday after a six-month investigation into the martial law case. The investigation resulted in the indictment of 24 individuals, including Yoon, former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, several former cabinet members, high-ranking military officials, and various political figures. The charges relate to insurrection and foreign interference.

The investigation found that Yoon's decision to declare martial law was not a spontaneous reaction to budget cuts by the opposition or the impeachment of government officials, as Yoon had publicly stated. Instead, the team discovered evidence that Yoon had discussed martial law with his aides on multiple occasions, starting shortly after taking office in May 2022. Preparations reportedly intensified following a series of military reshuffles in late 2023.

According to Cho, the primary goal behind the martial law plan was to consolidate and maintain political power. He stated that this conclusion was drawn from seized notes, internal memos, and testimonies from those involved in the planning.

The investigation revealed that Yoon and his associates intended to use the military to suspend normal political activities, effectively paralyzing the National Assembly and replacing it with an emergency legislative body. This would have allowed them to seize legislative and judicial authority and suppress opposition forces.

The preparations included detailed personnel planning, operational discussions, and repeated contact with senior military commanders. The team also noted that the relocation of the presidential office and residence to the Yongsan District, closer to key military facilities, facilitated closer coordination between the president and the armed forces.

The special counsel's report indicated that discussions about the timing and implementation of martial law continued regardless of political developments, including the results of the previous year's general elections. Yoon and his associates allegedly framed the planning as a response to a perceived national crisis caused by hostile political forces.

The timing of the martial law declaration was strategically chosen to minimize potential intervention from abroad, particularly from the United States, which was undergoing a presidential transition at the time. A memo from an associate of Yoon mentioned the need for "cooperation from the U.S." and providing "prior notice to the U.S." Reportedly, senior Korean intelligence officials were scheduled to visit Washington the day after the declaration.

Cho also addressed allegations that Yoon intended to provoke a security crisis with North Korea, possibly by sending drones carrying anti-Kim Jong-un leaflets to Pyongyang, to create a justification for martial law.

“While there were attempts to create a situation that could have been used to justify such measures, those efforts did not lead to a military response from Pyongyang,” Cho said.

The special counsel stated that there was no evidence indicating that former first lady Kim Keon Hee was involved in the planning or execution of the martial law imposition. Additionally, the investigation found no support for claims of shamanistic or occult influence.

Allegations involving the judiciary and prosecutors’ offices were also examined, but the investigation found no evidence of participation or coordinated actions related to the declaration by senior judicial officials.

Cho emphasized that the investigation provided a detailed account of the preparation and intent behind the martial law imposition. That said, the reality is a bit more complicated. the courts will ultimately determine guilt. The special counsel's role was to present factual findings and bring legal charges based on the evidence gathered.

Prosecutors involved in the case will now focus on securing convictions in court based on the indictments that have been filed.