20260101_COL_B : Retired generals lose pension benefits amid broader debate on public service and accountability

 

 
Kim Seung-hyun
 
The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.
 
 
 
When Kim Nak-soo decided to put all his retirement savings into what he believed was a promising investment, many viewers felt they knew exactly how he felt. Kim is the protagonist of the JTBC drama “The Dream Life of Mr. Kim” (2025), which follows a midcareer corporate manager as his carefully built life begins to unravel. In one critical scene, he stakes his entire severance package on a speculative commercial property deal, only to lose it all. The moment resonates with viewers because it speaks to very real fears about retirement and the resulting financial risk.
 

From left: Former President Yoon Suk Yeol, former Capital Defense Command chief Lee Jin-woo, former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief Yeo In-hyung and former first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won speak during the fifth impeachment trial hearing at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 5. [CONSTITUTIONAL COURT/NEWS1]

 
But in recent Defense Ministry news, the real-life financial losses are not coming from bad investments, but from taking accountability for actions taken in the heat of a political crisis. Several former generals who assigned troops to key government sites when former President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on Dec. 3, 2024, have now been stripped of rank and face significant reductions in their retirement benefits.
 
Among them are Yeo In-hyung, the former commander of the Defense Counterintelligence Command, and Lee Jin-woo, the former commander of the Korean Army’s Capital Defense Command. Both have been dismissed from service, which effectively cuts their military pension entitlements in half. Their circumstances serve as a stark reminder of how quickly security can dissipate when legal and ethical lines are crossed.
 
The charges stem from allegations related to an attempted power grab prompted by former President Yoon’s controversial orders to deploy military forces to the National Assembly and the National Election Commission. Those actions, widely characterized as unlawful, have not only cost these officers their reputations but also a significant portion of their future finances.
 
Not all affected officers faced the same outcomes. Kwak Jong-geun, a former Special Warfare Command chief who publicly revealed orders from Yoon to detain lawmakers, was initially recommended for dismissal. At his disciplinary hearing, however, his sentence was reduced. Both the Constitutional Court impeachment proceedings and subsequent court testimony establishing his contribution to uncovering the truth were factors in this decision.
 
Because his punishment was downgraded, Kwak will still receive his full military pension, avoiding what could have been a loss of tens of millions of won over time. For career soldiers, especially those in their late 50s who spent decades in uniform and would otherwise have little in terms of private savings, these pensions are often the cornerstone of post-service financial security. It is this shared vulnerability that makes the comparison to Kim Nak-soo's fictional plight feel so relevant.
 
Some may view concern for the welfare of disgraced public servants as inappropriate when weighed against the gravity of betraying public trust. Yet when considering the families of these officers and the abrupt, life-altering financial impact that these decisions will have on them, a degree of sympathy is understandable.
 
The nightmare may not be over. Under the Military Pension Act, if a public servant is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a job-related offense, pension benefits can be reduced by a set percentage. In particularly severe cases — including crimes defined under criminal law as rebellion or treason, or under military law as mutiny or aiding the enemy — the pension can be entirely forfeited, except for the total amount of contributions and accrued interest.
 

Related Article

• Cabinet approves bills to form special tribunals for insurrection, impose punitive damages for fake news

• 3 more general officers suspended over martial law allegations

• Former general implicated in Dec. 3 martial law plot ran fortune-telling business: Reports

• Yoon mentioned martial law as early as summer, says key general

 
These rules mirror provisions for civil servants more broadly. Few public officials are likely unaware that such statutes exist when they start their careers. Over the decades, groups of former soldiers and civil servants have legally challenged reductions in retirement benefits, arguing that such cuts constitute double punishment and an infringement on property rights. Judicial and Constitutional Court decisions have refined the legal landscape. Courts have consistently held that public servants, as servants of the people, have a fundamental duty of loyalty to the nation. That duty, courts reason, underpins the very structure of pension systems.
 
Under this view, a pension does not act merely as welfare but as a reward for faithful service. Those who fail to uphold their responsibilities forfeit not only public trust but also the financial privileges that come with serving one's country honorably. By differentiating compensation for those who served with fidelity from those who did not, the system aims to encourage conscientious performance and safeguard institutional integrity.
 
Seen in this light, the pension system is more than a retirement benefit. It is a mechanism to preserve the original public service ethos, ensuring that officials remain committed to duty from the moment they enter the service until long after they retire.
 
The recent cases involving high-ranking officers — both as perpetrators of and witnesses to the martial law crisis — offer a sobering lesson in the perils of straying from that ethos. As Korea heads into a new year, government officials across all branches may find in these events a cautionary example of how easily professional standing and financial stability can be jeopardized by decisions that cross legal or ethical boundaries.


This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.