What you need to know about the arrest of South Korean Yoon – ThePrint – ReutersFeed

By Hyonhee Shin
SEOUL (Reuters) – South Korean investigators arrested impeached President Yoon Suk-yeol on Wednesday for alleged rebellion over his attempt to impose martial law, ending weeks of defiance and claims by Yun and his lawyers that an arrest warrant was invalid.

Yoon and the Corruption Eradication Investigation Office (CIO), which is reviewing his December 3 short-term martial law order, are at odds over whether the CIO has the power to arrest the president and bring criminal charges against him.

Here is what is known about his arrest so far:

WHO ARE THE INVESTIGATORS?

The IT director leads a joint investigation team involving the police and the Ministry of Defense, which charges Yun with rebellion and abuse of power, while prosecutors conduct their own investigation.

The CIO was established in January 2021 as an independent anti-corruption agency to investigate high-ranking officials, including the president, and their family members as part of efforts to control prosecutors.

But his powers of investigation and prosecution are limited. He does not have the authority to prosecute the president and is required to refer the case to the prosecutor’s office for any action, including indictment, after the questioning is completed.

WHAT IS YOUN’S ARGUMENT?

On Wednesday, Yoon said he turned himself in for questioning to avoid bloodshed, despite what he called the investigation and arrest illegal.

Yun’s lawyers have said the CIO does not have the authority to hear his case because the law provides a broad list of high-ranking officials and violations it can investigate, but does not mention the rebellion.

Prosecutors capable of investigating sedition charges are conducting a separate investigation into Yoon.

The lawyers also said the arrest warrant issued by the Seoul District Court was unconstitutional because it said the warrant was exempt from two articles of the Criminal Procedure Law that limit the seizure and search of a place that is the subject of classified military information or a public official possession of an official secret without providing legal grounds.

They said any criminal investigation should take place after the Constitutional Court conducts an impeachment trial against Yun and decides whether to permanently remove him from office.

Yoon’s team filed a complaint and injunction with the Constitutional Court to review the legality of the warrant, although the Seoul Western District Court, which issued the warrant, rejected such a complaint.

On January 3, Presidential Security Service and military guards blocked CIO investigators from arresting Yun during a six-hour standoff. Its chief at the time, Park Jung-joon, said the security agency could not cooperate with the warrant, citing a legal debate over the investigative rights of the IT director and the validity of the warrant.

WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE CIP, THE POLICE?

The CIO said he secured the right to take on Yoon’s case by obtaining an arrest warrant, and two sections of the Criminal Procedure Act did not apply because the warrant was limited to his arrest and not the confiscation of his property.

But the agency apologized for not arresting Yoon in the first place and asked the police to take over the execution of the warrant because it believed that “a case as serious as this should not leave even the slightest room for controversy.”

Police acknowledged there was a legal dispute over such a transfer, but said they would consult with the IT director.

The IT director and police held several meetings to discuss how to execute the warrant after receiving a second warrant on January 7.

Seok Dong-hyun, Yoon’s legal adviser, said the offer to transfer the execution of the warrant was effectively an admission by the IT director that his investigation and warrant were “illegal.”

WHAT DO THE COURTS SAY?

On Monday, the Constitutional Court said it was considering the complaint and injunction filed by Yun’s lawyers.

Seoul’s Western District Court, having rejected a similar complaint earlier, said Yoon’s case was not illegal for the IT director because the rebellion charges are included in the abuse of power charges being handled by the agency.

It also stated that the warrant exclusion from two sections of the Criminal Procedure Act established that any search that might have been warranted was for the purpose of arresting the defendant and not for seizing his belongings, and it was not unconstitutional for the judge to state that during order approval.

Yun’s lawyers criticized the court’s statement as “sophistication” and said they would consider challenging the decision in a higher court.

(Reporting by Hyonhee Shin; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Michael Perry)

Disclaimer: This report was automatically generated by Reuters News Service. ThePrint is not responsible for its content.