Former President Yoon Suk-yeol appeared before the second General Special Counsel team on June 6, 2026, for questioning regarding military rebellion [1].
This summons marks a critical escalation in the legal proceedings against the former leader, as investigators seek to determine the legality of his actions during a period of declared martial law.
Yoon arrived at the General Special Counsel office in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi province, at 10 a.m. [1]. The appearance comes 102 days after the launch of the General Special Counsel investigation [1]. This is the first time the former president has been summoned for questioning by this specific team [1].
The investigation focuses on allegations that Yoon sent messages intended to justify the imposition of martial law [1], [2]. Investigators are specifically examining whether these actions constituted a military rebellion, or an abuse of power to obstruct the exercise of legal rights [2], [3].
According to FN News, the Special Counsel team has scheduled two separate summons for the former president [3]. The first session on June 6 focuses on the justification messages, while a second session scheduled for June 13 will address the military rebellion charges [3].
Legal representatives for Yoon have previously expressed concerns regarding the proceedings. A representative for Yoon said there was potential for the infringement of personality rights [4].
The proceedings in Gwacheon remain private as the Special Counsel team works to establish a timeline of the communications that led to the military mobilization [1].
“The investigation focuses on allegations that Yoon sent messages intended to justify the imposition of martial law.”
The summons of a former head of state on charges of military rebellion represents a severe legal challenge to the legitimacy of the previous administration's emergency powers. By splitting the investigation into two distinct sessions—one for the communication strategy and one for the rebellion itself—the Special Counsel is attempting to build a comprehensive case that links the intent to justify martial law with the actual execution of military maneuvers.
