Exclusive: Yoon told security team to flash guns at police, prosecutors allege
The special prosecutor investigating former President Yoon Suk-yeol has requested a pretrial detention warrant, citing obstruction, abuse of authority, and falsification of public records—but notably excluding the more serious allegation that Yoon incited foreign aggression. Legal experts say the move likely reflects a tactical decision to secure his custody before escalating the probe into potentially treasonous conduct.
On July 6, the office of Special Counsel Cho Eun-seok filed the warrant with a Seoul court, warning that Yoon’s continued freedom could result in destruction of evidence or witness tampering. The 66-page document, reviewed by The Chosun Ilbo, outlines a range of charges, including unlawful interference with state functions and violation of laws governing presidential records.
At the center of the case is Yoon’s controversial declaration of martial law on Dec. 3, 2024, amid growing political unrest. Prosecutors allege that Yoon convened a cabinet meeting with just 10 ministers, including then–Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, sidelining the remaining nine and effectively stripping them of their legal oversight. The decision, reportedly made in under five minutes, is described as unilateral and lacking due deliberation.
The arrest warrant further alleges that Yoon instructed his aides to distribute official statements justifying the emergency powers to international media outlets, including the Associated Press, CNN, and Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun. Prosecutors argue the former president abused his position by directing public servants to engage in politically motivated messaging.
Yoon is also accused of conspiring with Han to draft and later destroy a “backdated martial law proclamation,” leading to charges of document falsification, tampering with state archives, and destruction of public property.
Other allegations include obstruction of a legally authorized arrest attempt by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), and ordering the deletion of encrypted communications servers used by the presidential security team shortly after martial law was declared.
Prosecutors cited one particularly alarming episode: during a luncheon on Jan. 11, Yoon allegedly told senior security officials, “If the police send in SWAT teams, they won’t fire. Our security detail shoots better. Just showing your guns will scare them. Let them see you’re armed.” The comment is interpreted in the warrant as a directive to intimidate law enforcement.
Yoon has denied all charges. In a second round of questioning on July 5, he reportedly rejected the prosecution’s claims. His legal team said the special counsel has “presented no objective evidence” and insisted that even witness statements cited by prosecutors “do not establish criminal liability.”
On the charge of obstructing his own arrest, Yoon claimed he never expected the CIO to execute a warrant at the presidential residence, which is designated as a military facility. Regarding the deleted server logs, he said he merely instructed his former deputy security chief Kim Sung-hoon to “follow standard security protocol.”
Yoon also maintained that he had no involvement in drafting the so-called “postdated” martial law proclamation, which he claimed was authored independently by a former senior aide. On the exclusion of several cabinet members from the emergency meeting, he testified that those summoned were simply “the ones who could arrive the fastest.”
Although not included in the arrest request, the special counsel is continuing to investigate allegations that Yoon ordered a military drone to enter North Korean airspace in October 2024 in an attempt to provoke a response from Pyongyang. Prosecutors say they have obtained an audio recording in which an individual—believed to be an active-duty officer—states that Yoon gave the order and “clapped in approval” upon hearing of the incursion. Yoon has denied the claim, saying he neither issued such an order nor received any such report.
The special prosecutor’s office confirmed that the foreign aggression case remains active. A senior official said recent interviews were conducted with a researcher from the Agency for Defense Development and with the whistleblower who provided the audio recording. “There’s still a great deal of work left on that front,” the spokesperson said.