When did Yoon's insurrection end? Two special prosecutor teams clash — and the courts may decide

With little more than a week left before it wraps up, the second comprehensive special prosecutor team — led by Special Prosecutor Kwon Chang-young — is pursuing its final stretch of investigation under the view that the insurrection stemming from the Dec. 3 emergency martial law declaration ended on Dec. 14, 2024, when former President Yoon Suk Yeol was suspended from his duties after the National Assembly passed an impeachment motion against him. That position diverges from the insurrection special prosecutor team led by Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok, which holds that the insurrection ended on Dec. 4, 2024, when the Assembly voted to lift the martial law. The two teams, which investigated the series of allegations arising from Yoon's martial law declaration in sequence, have reached different conclusions — and the question of when exactly the insurrection ended looks set to be resolved by the courts.

The comprehensive special prosecutor team, which is investigating allegations left unresolved after the three earlier special counsel probes into insurrection, Kim Keon Hee and the Marine Corps corporal case, indicted former Korea Policy Broadcasting Service (KTV) president Lee Eun-woo without detention on Tuesday on charges of insurrection propaganda. In announcing the indictment, the team said it had concluded that "even though the emergency martial law was lifted on Dec. 4, 2024, the insurrection continued and ended only on Dec. 14, 2024, when the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion against former President Yoon, suspending him from his duties."

According to the team, Lee is accused of insurrection propaganda for repeatedly and intensively spreading information justifying the insurrection between Dec. 3 and Dec. 13, 2024, while selectively blocking and deleting content critical of or aimed at stopping it. He had already been indicted on a separate charge of abuse of authority for allegedly ordering the deletion of broadcast subtitles covering politicians' statements that the martial law declaration was illegal and unconstitutional.

The team noted that unlike the 1980 insurrection involving former President Chun Doo-hwan — which it characterized as an insurrection from below — Yoon's alleged insurrection was one from above, and that the crime of insurrection is a purpose-driven offense. On that basis, it concluded that the insurrection, which began with the martial law declaration, ended only when Yoon either abandoned his objective on his own or was objectively prevented from achieving it.

Under that reasoning, the team holds that Lee continued to engage in insurrection propaganda even after martial law was lifted, since the insurrection itself did not end until Dec. 14. In that context — extending the insurrection's end date — the team has been broadening its investigation to include figures connected to a ruling party-government-presidential office meeting held at the prime minister's official residence on Dec. 4, as well as a separate gathering that evening at a presidential safe house.

Some legal observers have noted that pushing back the insurrection's end date could open the door to applying insurrection charges against People Power Party lawmakers who moved to block Yoon's impeachment.

The comprehensive team's decision to push back the insurrection's end date faces significant legal hurdles, however. It directly conflicts with the insurrection special prosecutor team's position, and the two teams have already been at odds over issues including whether to transfer the case against former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae on alleged violations of the Anti-Graft Act, and whether to pursue charges against former Capital Defense Command 1st Security Battalion commander Col. Jo Seong-hyeon.

The insurrection special prosecutor team issued a statement Wednesday saying "the point at which martial law was lifted is when the insurrection ended." It said that in the Chun Doo-hwan case, the martial law expansion itself constituted the "riot" element of the crime of insurrection — because Chun had already seized state power by taking office as president and enacting the Fifth Republic constitution — and that the insurrection was therefore deemed to have ended on Jan. 24, 1981, when martial law was lifted.

With trials on cases brought by the insurrection special prosecutor proceeding one after another, legal observers expect the question of when the insurrection ended to be settled as courts hear the additional cases indicted by the comprehensive team.

A court rejected the comprehensive team's arrest warrant request against Lee on the insurrection propaganda charge — its first warrant application — saying "there is room for dispute over whether the crime of insurrection incitement is established." Sources said skepticism about the decision to push back the insurrection's end date exists even within the team itself, and that the team conducted its legal review only after filing the warrant application.

Legal analysts say the intent to undermine constitutional order may be recognized, but whether a "riot" occurred will be the central issue. "The elements of the crime of insurrection are intent to undermine constitutional order and a riot — and didn't the riot end when the troops withdrew from the National Assembly and elsewhere?" one legal expert said. "The team's reasoning seems internally inconsistent. It will not be easy to prove in court that the insurrection's end date should be pushed back."

The first-instance court that sentenced Yoon to life imprisonment on charges of leading an insurrection had previously held that the crime of insurrection with intent to undermine constitutional order requires both that intent and the commission of a riot. The court found both elements present, concluding that Yoon had intended to deploy troops to effectively disable the National Assembly for a substantial period.

The comprehensive team, which launched in February, is set to conclude its activities on Aug. 23 — after a base term of 90 days extended twice by 30 days each, plus an additional month granted through a legislative amendment — and plans to announce its final investigative findings on Aug. 24. Having faced controversy over alleged bias throughout its investigation, the team now confronts a new challenge: proving its charges in court.