Yoon Suk-yeol Faces Historic Special Counsel Investigation: Inside the First Interrogation Over Martial Law and Evidence Deletion

A Former President Under the Spotlight: The Start of a New Chapter

Did you know that South Korea is witnessing a truly unprecedented moment? On June 28, 2025, former President Yoon Suk-yeol appeared at the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office for his first face-to-face interrogation by the special counsel team. The investigation centers on the controversial December 3 martial law incident and allegations of orchestrating the deletion of classified military phone records, as well as direct orders to obstruct the execution of an arrest warrant. Yoon’s silent and stern demeanor as he entered the building, refusing to answer reporters’ questions, set the tone for a day that would ripple through Korean society and its global observers. This marks the first time a former president has been directly questioned at a prosecutor’s office under such circumstances, breaking long-standing protocol and drawing intense media scrutiny.

What Sparked the Investigation? The Martial Law and Evidence Deletion Allegations

The roots of this investigation lie in the so-called '12·3 Martial Law'—a state of emergency declared in response to political unrest. The special counsel, led by Cho Eun-seok, is probing whether Yoon, during his presidency, abused his authority to mobilize the Presidential Security Service to block the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Agency (known as the '공수처') from executing an arrest warrant. Additionally, the team is investigating claims that Yoon ordered military commanders to delete records from 'Beehwa phones'—secure devices used for sensitive communications. These actions, if proven, could constitute obstruction of justice and abuse of power at the highest level. The investigation is not just about the events themselves, but about the integrity of the rule of law and the boundaries of presidential authority in a democracy.

Inside the Interrogation: No Tea, No Formalities, Just Questions

In a break from tradition, there was no customary 'tea time' or formalities before the interrogation began. Yoon arrived at the prosecutor’s office at 9:55 AM, choosing to enter through the main entrance rather than the underground garage, a move seen as both symbolic and strategic. The special counsel’s questioning focused on two main allegations: the use of the Presidential Security Service to physically block investigators and the directive to erase sensitive military communications. The session was expected to be lengthy, with the possibility of continuing late into the night depending on Yoon’s cooperation. Yoon’s legal team, consisting of three prominent attorneys, was present throughout the process. The special counsel also made arrangements for security personnel to remain on standby near the interrogation room, highlighting the gravity and sensitivity of the situation.

Community Reactions: Divided Opinions and Fiery Online Debates

Online communities like DC Inside, Theqoo, and Nate Pann exploded with reactions as news of Yoon’s interrogation broke. Supporters of Yoon argue that the investigation is politically motivated, with comments such as 'This is just a witch hunt against a former president' and 'No evidence, just rumors.' On the other hand, critics are vocal: 'No one is above the law, not even a former president,' and 'If he really ordered the deletion of evidence, he must be held accountable.' International fans and observers are fascinated by the transparency and intensity of Korean civic engagement, noting the speed at which information and opinions spread through digital platforms. The debate extends beyond politics, touching on issues of justice, historical memory, and the evolving expectations of leadership in modern Korea.

Cultural Context: Why This Investigation Resonates in Korea and Beyond

To truly understand the significance of this event, it’s essential to grasp South Korea’s recent history with presidential scandals and the public’s demand for accountability. Previous presidents have faced legal challenges after leaving office, but the direct, public nature of this interrogation is new. The martial law controversy also evokes memories of past authoritarian eras, making the current investigation a litmus test for the resilience of South Korean democracy. For international fans, this is a window into the country’s ongoing struggle to balance rapid modernization with the need for transparent governance. The role of the special counsel—an independent body created to ensure impartiality in high-profile cases—reflects a broader trend in Korean society toward institutional checks and balances.

What’s Next? Legal Ramifications and the Road Ahead

The special counsel’s investigation is far from over. Following the first interrogation, the team continued to summon key figures, including former cabinet members and security officials, to clarify the chain of command and the decision-making process during the martial law period. The possibility of further indictments, or even a request for Yoon’s arrest, remains on the table, especially as the special counsel has already filed for an arrest warrant on charges of abuse of power and obstruction. The outcome of this case will likely have a lasting impact on how future leaders are held accountable and could influence public trust in the justice system for years to come.

How the International Community and K-Fandoms Are Watching

Global media outlets and K-culture fandoms are closely following the developments. For many international fans, the case is a dramatic example of Korea’s vibrant democracy and the complexities of its political culture. Some K-pop and K-drama communities have even drawn parallels between the real-life investigation and storylines from popular series, fueling discussions about justice, loyalty, and the meaning of leadership. The case is also being used in classrooms and online forums to discuss the importance of civic responsibility and the power of public opinion in shaping national narratives.

Final Thoughts: A Defining Moment for Korean Democracy

As the investigation unfolds, one thing is clear: this is not just about one man or one administration. It’s a test of Korea’s legal institutions, its cultural values, and its commitment to democratic principles. Whether Yoon is ultimately found guilty or exonerated, the process itself is setting new precedents for transparency and accountability. For foreign readers and fans, this is a moment to watch closely—a real-life drama that reveals both the challenges and the strengths of modern Korean society.