Former President Yoon Suk-yeol (from left), former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, and former Commander of the Defense Counterintelligence Command Yeo In-hyeong. On the 12th, the camp of former President Yoon Suk-yeol filed a motion to recuse the court in the first trial of the 'North Korean Drone Suspicion' case, which deals with treason. [Photo=Yonhap News]

Regarding President Lee Jae-myung's remarks on drones, since his statement on the 10th, some in civil society have argued that it could be considered an act of treason.

While the legal assessment is that it is unlikely to be established, considering the recent political practice where special prosecutors have been repeatedly invoked at the suspicion stage, this debate is expanding beyond a simple exchange of words to a systemic issue.

President Lee stated in relation to North Korea's drone infiltration claims that it would be a "grave crime if true" and ordered a joint investigation by the military and police.

In response, the opposition and some civic groups have raised concerns that the President's remarks could effectively lend credibility to North Korea's unilateral claims.

Conversely, the legal community generally assesses that the remarks and actions alone are unlikely to meet the criteria for treason under criminal law, specifically the crime of foreign aggression. It is argued that the appropriateness of diplomatic and security judgments should be distinguished from the establishment of criminal offenses.

Legally, treason is a serious crime.

Article 99 of the Criminal Act (General Treason) stipulates that acts providing military advantage to an enemy or harming the military interests of the Republic of Korea are subject to punishment, and intent, specific acts, and causation must be strictly proven.

In particular, not only intent but also the causal relationship between specific acts and the resulting infringement of military interests must be clearly demonstrated.

While the President's remarks may be diplomatically and security-wise controversial, a majority in the legal community holds the common view that it is difficult to conclude that foreign aggression has been established solely by these remarks.

However, a crucial point that cannot be overlooked in this debate is the scope of the President's immunity from prosecution.

Article 84 of the Constitution generally restricts the criminal prosecution of the President, but makes an exception for crimes of rebellion or foreign aggression.

Treason is a crime included under foreign aggression in criminal law, and legally, it falls within the category for which a sitting president can be indicted.

For this reason, this debate has aspects that are difficult to dismiss as mere political rhetoric.

Nevertheless, the nature of the demand for a special prosecutor is closer to a matter of political practice than legal inevitability.

Looking at recent cases where special prosecutors have been pursued in the political arena, special prosecutors have been demanded at the suspicion stage before the establishment of a crime has been confirmed; special prosecutors have been activated before the limitations of existing investigative agencies have been proven; and the targets have mostly been core figures of the administration or former power holders.

It is pointed out that the formula of "suspicion → special prosecutor" has been repeated in politics.

If this standard is applied as is, it is also possible to argue that President Lee Jae-myung's case is difficult to exclude from the scope of demands for a special prosecutor based on formal logic.

This discussion is also intertwined with the current situation in the National Assembly.

In the National Assembly, the second special prosecutor bill passed the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on January 12th and is awaiting a plenary session.

This bill also has the characteristic of activating a special prosecutor based on political necessity at the stage of suspicion where the establishment of a crime has not been confirmed, leading to the assessment that special prosecutors are becoming a repeatedly invoked political device rather than an exceptional measure.

Warnings are also emerging from the legal community that the overuse of special prosecutors could ultimately backfire.

If the practice of activating special prosecutors at the suspicion stage becomes solidified, the standard will inevitably be applied equally to the current administration.

In particular, when compared to the case where former President Yoon Suk-yeol was indicted for treason in the ongoing special prosecution, it is pointed out that it is difficult to rule out the possibility of fairness debates arising in the future.

Top legal figures, including former Prosecutor General and former Supreme Court Justice, universally warn that "if special prosecutors begin to operate based on political logic rather than legal principles, their legitimacy will not be confined to specific cases."

One former head of a investigative agency stated, "If strong arguments are made for the legitimacy of indicting former President Yoon Suk-yeol for treason, while drawing a line and stating that any discussion of a special prosecutor for the current president's case is inappropriate, this will inevitably lead to a self-contradiction in the standards for special prosecutors."

Another former senior judicial official pointed out, "Since treason falls within the category applicable to a sitting president under the Constitution, if the standards for special prosecutors vary depending on the individual, that itself will undermine the credibility of the system."

Ultimately, the essence of the debate surrounding a special prosecutor for treason concerning President Lee Jae-myung is not about the guilt or innocence of the individual.

The core of the issue is the political arena's consistency regarding when and on what grounds special prosecutors should operate.

If a special prosecutor is to be the last resort after criminal charges have been substantially substantiated, this case would be difficult to warrant a special prosecutor.

However, if special prosecutors have been used as a tool to hold political accountability at the suspicion stage, then the principle of fairness dictates that President Lee Jae-myung cannot be an exception.

The question posed by this debate is clear.

Is the special prosecutor an instrument of justice, or a weapon of politics?

When a special prosecutor loses its standard and targets a specific individual, that standard ultimately returns to everyone.

What is needed now is not a hasty conclusion, but a restoration of standards so that the system of special prosecutors is no longer invoked based on political convenience.

Reporter Kim Young