The 46 remaining insurrection cases left to the special prosecutor exceed the remit of the proposed Insurrection Special Investigation Unit

The special prosecutor's 46 unfinished cases exceed the scope of the 'Insurrection Special Investigation Unit'

The fate of 46 remaining insurrection cases the special prosecutor could not complete has become a point of sharp contention between the ruling and opposition parties over the formation of a new investigative body. President Lee Jae-myung has ordered a review of the organizational placement and operating structure of a separate body to handle follow-up investigations into the December 3 insurrection case, and with the 'Insurrection Special Investigation Unit' emerging as a leading candidate, observers say the focus of state affairs is shifting toward overhauling the investigative apparatus. Much as the aphorism goes that injecting truth into politics makes politics disappear, the battle of narratives over investigative continuity has now turned into a question of institutional design.

Why a follow-up investigative body is being discussed

According to Yonhap News, 46 cases handed over to the police by the second special prosecution team led by Kwon Chang-young remain pending. A special prosecutor's deadline and staffing are limited, and cases whose indictment decisions have not been made, along with newly filed complaints, are bound to drift without a follow-up investigative framework. Given that insurrection cases involve a broad scope of alleged offenses and numerous parties, making closure decisions is no easy task — which is seen as driving the judgment that the body's institutional placement and mandate must be settled first.

The Insurrection Special Investigation Unit under discussion is reportedly being reviewed with options ranging from placing it under the National Police Agency to delegating the work to existing investigative bodies such as the Corruption Investigation Office. Either way, the aim is to guarantee both the specialized expertise required for insurrection charges and investigative continuity. The body must secure three core elements: smooth handover of case records built by the special prosecutor, stable staffing of investigators, and public trust in its political neutrality.

Ruling-opposition standoff: what are the stakes?

The People Power Party has taken issue with the very consideration of the special investigation unit. According to reports, party leader Cho Kwang-han and other opposition leadership figures countered that forming a separate investigative body on top of the special prosecutor amounts to intimidation of the prosecution service and the attorney general nominee, and an attempt to seize control of investigative agencies. Their concern is the potential for abuse of investigative power. The ruling camp, by contrast, argues that leaving the 46 remaining cases unattended would create a gap in judicial justice — that since the special prosecutor was launched to investigate, a system must exist to carry the work through to the end with accountability.

Even within the opposition, including the Rebuilding Korea Party, which has supported the redistribution of investigative powers and prosecution reform, there are strong calls for the follow-up body's independence. Critics point out that if the body falls under the influence of the presidential office or the executive branch, its stated purpose as the special prosecutor's successor could be compromised. In the end, the question boils down not to 'whether to investigate' but to 'who investigates, and under what controls.'

Timeline and outlook

Given the legislative process, the Insurrection Special Investigation Unit would need related legislation passed by the National Assembly to gain legal footing. While approaches through government reorganization or police agency bylaws are possible, the prevailing view is that statutory codification is the stable path, given the unresolved question of where compulsory investigative and indictment powers would reside. If the two parties bundle investigative agency-related bills into the National Assembly leadership negotiations, the timing could align with the audit and budget season — meaning the schedule could accelerate considerably or, conversely, stall altogether.

The statute of limitations and evidence preservation issues surrounding the 46 remaining cases amount to a race against time, making them the practical pressure point in this debate. The later the follow-up body arrives, the greater the risk to each case of expiration of the statute of limitations or destruction of evidence. Following the president's directive, plans covering the body's placement, staffing, and scope of authority are expected to take shape, led by the Office for Government Policy Coordination and the Ministry of Justice — and at that point, the leverage in ruling-opposition negotiations is likely to shift as well. The number 46 is poised to become the very scorecard the public will be watching.