Disciplinary Measures Announced Following Martial‑Law Investigation The Defense Ministry revealed on Dec. 29, 2025 that five senior Army officers received severe disciplinary action for their involvement in former President Yoon Suk‑yeol’s aborted attempt to declare martial law on Dec. 3, 2025 [1]. The penalties were issued after a committee review that examined eight officers linked to the bid, ultimately focusing on five individuals [1]. This move signals a decisive effort to enforce accountability within the military hierarchy amid the constitutional crisis [1].

Three Senior Officers Face Potential Removal From Office Yeo In‑hyung, former head of the Defense Counterintelligence Command, Lee Jin‑woo, former chief of the Capital Defense Command, and Kwak Jong‑keun, former commander of the Army Special Warfare Command were each handed the most serious level of discipline [1]. All three are on trial for insurrection, accused of deploying troops to the National Assembly and the National Election Commission on the night the martial‑law declaration was attempted [1]. Yeo and Lee are expected to be removed from their posts, while Kwak could be dismissed for aiding constitutional restoration and testifying in Yoon’s trials [1].

Vice Chief of Staff Receives Second‑Highest Penalty Ko Hyun‑seok, who served as the Army’s vice chief of staff, was assigned the second‑highest level of disciplinary action as part of the same disciplinary package [1]. His sanction underscores the ministry’s broader scrutiny of senior leadership roles that facilitated the illegal bid [1]. The penalty reflects the seriousness with which the government views breaches of civilian‑military boundaries [1].

Additional Officer Suspended for Two Months An unnamed colonel from the Defense Counterintelligence Command received a two‑month suspension, completing the set of punishments against the five officers tied to the martial‑law scheme [1]. The colonel’s relatively lighter sanction contrasts with the harsher penalties imposed on the three top commanders and the vice chief of staff [1]. This tiered approach illustrates the ministry’s effort to proportionally address varying levels of culpability [1].