Police union official cleared over call to deploy special forces in Yoon arrest

An official with the National Police Workplace Council, a police labor union body, who was reported to prosecutors by a civic group for calling for the deployment of special police units during the execution of an arrest warrant against then-President Yoon Suk Yeol in January last year — following his declaration of emergency martial law on Dec. 3 — has been cleared without indictment, it has been confirmed.

The First Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office, currently led by acting chief Park Hyang-cheol, who also heads the Sixth Criminal Division, dismissed the complaint against Kim Seong-hong, former chairman of the National Police Workplace Council, and other union officials on June 23. The dismissal is a form of non-indictment issued when prosecutors determine there is no need to open an investigation.

Earlier, a joint investigation team comprising the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and the National Investigation Headquarters' special investigation unit attempted to execute an arrest warrant against then-President Yoon at the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, on Jan. 3 last year, but the Presidential Security Service blocked the effort.

Two days later, on Jan. 5, the National Police Workplace Council issued a statement saying, "An arrest warrant is a court order, and executing it is the most basic and essential role of the police." The union added, "Even in the face of organized obstruction by the head of the Presidential Security Service, police must enforce the law by any means necessary. We call for the full mobilization of special police units nationwide."

In response, the civic group Jayu Daehan Hogukdan filed a complaint with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office on Jan. 8, arguing that the union official's remarks — calling for the total mobilization of special police units to execute the warrant against Yoon — "seriously violated the duty of political neutrality that public officials are legally required to uphold."

Prosecutors reviewed the case and ruled that "it is difficult to regard urging the execution of a lawfully issued arrest warrant as constituting a political act prohibited under the State Public Officials Act," concluding there was "no need to initiate or continue an investigation" and dismissing the complaint without indictment.

Former President Yoon was separately handed a final seven-year prison sentence by the Supreme Court on July 9 for obstructing the CIO's execution of the arrest warrant, on charges of obstruction of official duties using force and abuse of authority. The ruling came 583 days after the Dec. 3, 2024, declaration of emergency martial law and marked the Supreme Court's first ruling against Yoon.

The Supreme Court's Third Division, presided over by Justice Lee Suk-yeon, found the warrant execution lawful, ruling that "the head of the Presidential Security Service did not provide specific grounds for refusing to allow the execution, and there was no recognized risk of serious harm to the national interest, making the refusal to grant access unlawful."

The First Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office also dismissed on June 23 a separate complaint against unidentified CIO and police officials accused of assaulting soldiers from the 55th Security Battalion under the Capital Defense Command — troops performing sentry duties in a military protection zone near the official residence compound during the warrant execution.

Jayu Daehan Hogukdan had filed the complaint last year, alleging that "sentries bear responsibility for protecting military installations and key security posts, and any act of obstructing or assaulting them in the performance of their duties constitutes a serious criminal offense threatening national security," and sought charges of aggravated assault against the unidentified officials.

Prosecutors said courts had determined that the CIO had authority to investigate Yoon on charges of abuse of authority, and that its investigative jurisdiction also extended to the directly related charge of leading an insurrection — and on that basis dismissed the complaint.