Former South Korean acting leader Choi Sang-mok was indicted on October 5, 2023, for his role in the controversial imposition of martial law in December 2024. This legal action marks a significant development in an ongoing investigation into the political turmoil surrounding the administration of then-President Yoon Suk Yeol. The indictment was confirmed by Special Prosecutor Park Ji-young during a briefing.
The charges against Choi stem from his tenure as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Finance. Alongside him, former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo is also facing charges of dereliction of duty. Both officials are accused of failing to appoint Constitutional Court justices recommended by the National Assembly during a chaotic period following President Yoon’s impeachment. Han served as Acting President from December 2024 until May 2025, a time marked by significant political instability.
The special prosecutor’s office argues that the inaction of Choi and Han created a judicial vacuum, contributing to the conditions that allowed for the subsequent declaration of martial law. The defense is expected to contend that their decisions were based on discretionary judgment amid an unprecedented political crisis.
Choi’s actions during his brief leadership role included appointing two of the three recommended justices. However, he withheld the appointment of Ma Eun-hyeok, citing a lack of bipartisan support. This decision has now been classified as a serious failure of duty under South Korea’s Public Official Election Act and related statutes concerning neglect of official duty.
As a result of these charges, both Choi and Han are facing the prospect of a trial that could have lasting legal and political repercussions. Their indictments are part of a wider investigation by the special prosecutor, who has also charged several former aides of Yoon for abuse of power connected to the flawed judicial nomination process.
While the indictment signifies a step toward accountability, it represents only a partial resolution of the profound constitutional crisis affecting South Korea. It highlights the alleged legal oversights of key individuals, yet it does not address the broader institutional trust issues that have emerged from the series of events, including the impeachment and subsequent martial law declaration.
The judicial process now faces the challenge of clarifying legal responsibilities amid a deeply polarized political climate. The outcomes of the trial, along with the implications for South Korea’s political landscape, remain uncertain as the nation grapples with the ramifications of these events.
