South Korea’s military leadership, including the former defense minister and top brass, has come under scrutiny in two of the three ongoing special counsel investigations.
These parallel probes are examining alleged unlawful drone operations over Pyongyang—a scheme linked to former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s suspected attempt to fabricate a justification for declaring martial law—and the 2023 death of a young Marine, in which Yoon is accused of abusing his authority to impede the initial investigation.
The special counsel team led by Cho Eun-suk is pressing on with its investigation into former President Yoon’s alleged martial law scheme, focusing on Maj. Gen. Kim Yong-dae, who heads the military’s Drone Operations Command.
The inquiry stems from internal military testimony claiming that Yoon directly ordered Kim to carry out the Pyongyang drone operation, bypassing the official chain of command, including the Ministry of National Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The drone commander is accused of falsifying an official document to conceal the drone operation over North Korea and of ordering his subordinates to launch the drones without United Nations Command approval.
According to the special counsel team, military records indicated the operation of two drones on Oct. 15, 2024. However, investigators discovered that only one drone was actually deployed, while the other was recorded as lost.
The team suspects that the records were manipulated to create the appearance that both drones flew that day, thereby hiding the fact that one had already crashed in Pyongyang on Oct. 9, six days earlier.
Following special counsel questioning on July 17, the drone commander stated, “It was impossible to document everything accurately about the classified military operation,” attributing the discrepancies to “administrative shortcomings.”
Investigators are now probing whether former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun also played a role in influencing the actions of the drone unit.
They are further examining whether Kim conducted an unauthorized drone operation over Pyongyang in Oct. 2024 at Yoon’s direction, aimed at provoking North Korea and justifying a declaration of martial law.
In a separate case, another special counsel—led by Lee Myeong-hyeon and tasked with re-examining the death of Cpl. Chae Su-geun—has submitted its first arrest warrant request to the Seoul Central District Court.
The team is seeking to detain former Marine Corps Commandant Lt. Gen. Kim Kye-hwan on charges of instigating malicious perjury and violating the Act on Testimony and Appraisal before the National Assembly.
Kim has been identified as the individual who allegedly informed Col. Park Jeong-hoon—the Marine investigator initially overseeing the Chae Su-geun case—that Yoon was incensed after reviewing the initial investigation report.
Since Park publicly made that claim in 2023, Kim has consistently denied ever conveying such a message, maintaining his stance in multiple testimonies before both the National Assembly and military court, and accusing Park of tarnishing the Marine Corps’ legacy due to a so-called “hero syndrome.”
Despite the special counsel team securing testimonies from others who stated that Yoon did express anger during meetings with military officials, Kim reportedly continued to deny the allegation in recent questioning.
Former Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup also provided a written statement to the special counsel, testifying that he received a call from Yoon on July 31, 2023.
Although Lee was scheduled to transfer the Marine Corps’ investigation records to the police, he reportedly received a call from the number “800-7070” and decided to postpone both the press briefing and the case transfer. It was later revealed that this number was associated with the presidential office.
However, Lee admitted after two years that the caller was indeed Yoon, adding that the former president neither expressed anger nor attempted to interfere with the investigation, but merely shared his concerns.
Lee has been named as a co-conspirator on charges of abuse of power and obstructing the exercise of rights in connection with the search and seizure warrant executed against him.
Most Commented