Former NIS Chief Cho Tae‑yong Denies Dereliction Charges as Court Schedules Witness Testimony
Updated (3 articles)
Cho Appears in Seoul Court and Refutes Dereliction Allegations On February 4, 2026, former National Intelligence Service director Cho Tae‑yong entered Seoul Central District Court and denied accusations that he failed to report President Yoon Suk‑yeol’s martial‑law plan to the National Assembly before Yoon’s televised address on December 3, 2024 [1]. He asserted that no duty was neglected and that any wrongdoing should be framed as insurrection, not dereliction of duty [1]. Prosecutors have simultaneously sought the death penalty for Yoon on insurrection charges, with a ruling slated for February 19, 2026 [1].
Legal Team Claims Indictment Stems from Speculative Conspiracy Theory Cho’s counsel argued the special counsel is “imagining” a conspiracy, insisting that the indictment relies on speculation rather than concrete evidence [1]. The defense emphasized that NIS protocol requires notifying parliament only for matters with a “grave impact” on national security, suggesting the alleged failure to inform lawmakers about night‑time troop arrests does not meet that threshold [1]. Lawyers urged prosecutors to pursue an insurrection charge instead of dereliction of duty [1].
Court Plans Witness Hearings Before Concluding Oral Arguments The Seoul Central District Court announced it will examine witnesses before ending oral arguments, potentially wrapping up that phase by late next month [1]. This indicates the trial remains in its early stage, with further evidence to be presented [1]. The schedule underscores the judiciary’s intent to thoroughly assess the allegations against Cho and other officials.
Broader Legal Crackdown Encompasses Multiple Former Officials Cho joins several senior former officials indicted over the brief martial‑law imposition, reflecting a wider prosecutorial effort targeting Yoon’s administration [1]. The indictments collectively signal an intensified legal response to the 2024 martial‑law episode [1]. Observers note the case’s significance for South Korea’s political accountability mechanisms [1].
Timeline
May 2024 – Former first lady Kim Keon‑hee sends a Telegram message to former Justice Minister Park Sung‑jae asking about the progress of investigations into her alleged stock‑manipulation and luxury‑bag cases, providing evidence later sought by prosecutors [3].
Dec 3, 2024 – President Yoon Suk‑yeol delivers a televised address announcing a martial‑law plan, leading to a brief imposition of martial law that becomes the focus of multiple criminal investigations [1].
Dec 2024 (mid‑month) – Night‑time troops under the martial‑law order attempt to arrest politicians; NIS protocol requires notification only for matters with a “grave impact” on national security, a point later contested by Cho Tae‑yong’s defense [1].
Dec 2025 – Special counsel Cho Eun‑suk’s team indicts former Justice Minister Park Sung‑jae on martial‑law‑related charges after concluding that former correctional service head Shin Yong‑hae drafted a plan to create detention space for an extra 3,600 detainees [2].
Dec 2, 2025 – Special prosecutors execute a court‑issued warrant at Cho Eun‑suk’s office, seizing Telegram records and other documents that could link Kim Keon‑hee to alleged attempts to suppress investigations into her corruption allegations [3].
Jan 6, 2026 – Police raid the special counsel’s office in southern Seoul, confiscating detention‑capacity data previously seized from Park and evidence of Shin Yong‑hae’s assessment that the capital could hold 3,600 additional detainees, reinforcing the detention‑space probe [2].
Feb 4, 2026 – Former NIS director Cho Tae‑yong appears before Seoul Central District Court, denies dereliction‑of‑duty charges and, through his lawyers, asserts prosecutors are “imagining” a conspiracy; the court schedules witness testimony and may conclude oral arguments by late March [1].
Feb 19, 2026 (scheduled) – The court is set to issue a ruling on former President Yoon Suk‑yeol’s insurrection trial, where prosecutors have requested the death penalty [1].