Special Investigation Team: "Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Myungsoo Kim Ignored Troop Withdrawal Recommendations"...Indicted for Insurrection Involvement

"Former Chairman Kim Could Have Recognized Illegality of Martial Law, But Responded Passively"


Kim's Side Protests "Unreasonable Legal Interpretation"

The results of the second comprehensive special prosecutor team led by Kwon Changyoung revealed that Myeongsoo Kim, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded passively to recommendations from his staff to withdraw troops during the 12·3 Martial Law, despite being indicted for participating in major insurrection-related duties at the time.

Myeongsoo Kim, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Photo by Yonhap News

On July 3, the special prosecutor’s team held a briefing in which they reconstructed the timeline of events that took place in the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Combat Control Room after the declaration of martial law.

According to the special prosecutor’s team, at approximately 10:34 p.m. on December 3, 2024, former Defense Minister Kim Yonghyun convened a commanders’ meeting in the Combat Control Room of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During the meeting, former Minister Kim reportedly stated, “The minister is responsible for all military activities. Anyone who disobeys orders will be charged with insubordination.”

At around 11:02 p.m. on the same day, former Chairman Kim arrived at the Combat Control Room and asked former Minister Kim about the situation. However, former Minister Kim is believed to have told him, without providing details, “Focus on the posture against North Korea.”

The special prosecutor’s team concluded that staff officers at the time were shocked after seeing live news footage of military helicopters over the National Assembly and questioned the legality of the martial law. Some staff members reportedly suggested to former Chairman Kim that “the procedure for declaring martial law is abnormal” and that “it is dangerous to deploy troops to the National Assembly, so they should be withdrawn.”

However, the special prosecutor’s team determined that former Chairman Kim rejected these recommendations, responding with remarks such as “Isn’t it possible that something is happening?” and “The Martial Law Command is in control, so I have no authority.”

The special prosecutor’s team also stated that former Chairman Kim issued brief orders to the Special Warfare Command and Capital Defense Command to “prioritize martial law duties,” and that he sent Joint Chiefs staff to the Martial Law Command to assist in the formation of its situation room.

The special prosecutor’s team noted that former Chairman Kim was sufficiently aware of the illegality of the martial law but did not actively oppose it, thereby aiding the insurrection. Based on this, former Chairman Kim was indicted without detention the previous day.

Lee Jaesik, former Chief of Readiness Inspection at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Jeong Jinpal, former Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Kim Heungjun, former Policy Chief of the Army Headquarters, were also sent to trial for participating in major insurrection-related duties.

On the other hand, Lee Seungo, former Chief of Operations at the Joint Chiefs, Kang Donggil, former Chief of Military Support, and Ahn Changmyung, former Chief of Operations, were not indicted. The special prosecutor’s team explained that they considered the fact that these three had advised former Chairman Kim of the legal issues regarding the declaration of martial law and the deployment of troops to the National Assembly.

Kim Jeongmin, special prosecutor, stated, “If former Chairman Kim had shown more courage when his staff made recommendations, the martial law situation could have ended or been blocked much earlier. There is some regret that, had he shown a willingness to speak frankly to the President or the Minister, the military might have acted far more honorably.”

Former Chairman Kim’s side objected to the special prosecutor’s decision to indict, claiming it was “based on a one-sided acknowledgement of facts and an unreasonable interpretation of the law.” His legal counsel argued, “After the motion to detain him was dismissed, the facts and evidence have not changed in any meaningful way, yet the indictment was pursued on the same grounds.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.