Court dismisses Yoon's petition challenging arrest, adding to his impeachment woes
Published: 16 Jan. 2025, 23:41
Updated: 17 Jan. 2025, 01:42
-
- SARAH KIM
- [email protected]
-
- MICHAEL LEE
- [email protected]
![President Yoon Suk Yeol is seen seated in the back of a car taking him to the Seoul Detention Center from the headquarters of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi, where investigators questioned him after taking him into custody on Jan. 15. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/01/17/f2fddd80-dde3-47ba-86be-3d1c9d134d4c.jpg)
President Yoon Suk Yeol is seen seated in the back of a car taking him to the Seoul Detention Center from the headquarters of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials in Gwacheon, Gyeonggi, where investigators questioned him after taking him into custody on Jan. 15. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]
The Seoul Central District Court on Thursday night dismissed a petition from President Yoon Suk Yeol’s legal defense team that challenged the validity of his arrest by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) the previous day.
The court’s decision, which was issued several hours after it held a closed-door hearing to review the petition, effectively recognizes the CIO’s right to hold Yoon.
Yoon was detained on Wednesday during a second attempt by police and CIO investigators to take him into custody for questioning over his Dec. 3 declaration of martial law, for which he has been accused of masterminding an insurrection against the country’s democratic order.
Yoon's attorneys filed a petition challenging the CIO’s arrest warrant later Wednesday, arguing the agency lacks the authority to investigate the president on such grounds.
Yoon’s legal team also argued his arrest was illegal because the warrant was issued by the Seoul Western District Court, which they claimed lacks jurisdiction.
However, the Seoul Central District Court called their claims “groundless” in its dismissal.
The decision lifts the pause on the 48-hour limit that CIO investigators have to question Yoon before they must apply for another warrant to hold him for a maximum of eight more days.
While in custody, the president has mostly refused to respond to investigators’ questions, according to the CIO.
The court’s rejection of the petition marks another legal blow to Yoon’s defense team.
Earlier Thursday, the Constitutional Court dismissed his legal representatives’ request to delay the second hearing of his impeachment trial on account of his detainment by the CIO.
The hearing began as scheduled at 2 p.m.
The court also accepted almost all of the witnesses and evidence submitted by the National Assembly’s impeachment investigation committee for consideration during the first hearing on Tuesday, rejecting objections raised by Yoon’s lawyers.
The court further scheduled three more hearings for Yoon’s impeachment trial on top of the three set to take place on Jan. 21, 23 and Feb. 4.
The additional hearings will take place at 10 a.m. on Feb. 6, 11 and 13.
During Thursday’s hearing, the court’s justices said that former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who has been indicted as a co-conspirator in Yoon’s declaration of martial law, will take the stand as a witness on Feb. 6.
The court told Yoon’s lawyers that the justices will consider their request to hear Kim’s testimony sooner.
Thursday’s hearing marked the first time that both sides of the impeachment trial laid out their arguments for Yoon’s removal or reinstatement.
The National Assembly impeachment investigation committee, which is the prosecuting authority in the case, argued that Yoon should be removed from office for declaring martial law, deploying troops to the National Assembly to prevent lawmakers from voting to overturn his decree, sending martial law forces to enter the offices of the National Election Commission without a warrant and ordering the arrest of high-profile lawmakers and politicians.
![Rep. Jung Chung-rae, chair of the parliamentary Legislation and Judiciary Committee, shakes hands with former Justice Cho Dae-hyun inside the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Jan. 16. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/01/17/40608198-a721-4dc8-8817-2e99391d1784.jpg)
Rep. Jung Chung-rae, chair of the parliamentary Legislation and Judiciary Committee, shakes hands with former Justice Cho Dae-hyun inside the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Jan. 16. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]
Democratic Party Rep Jung Chung-rae, who chairs the parliamentary Legislation and Judiciary Committee, argued that Yoon poses a risk to South Korean democracy and that the court should uphold his impeachment because he could “attempt to declare martial law a second time if reinstated.”
However, Yoon’s lawyers argued that the legislature had overstepped its authority by suspending him from office and that his martial law decree had done “no damage” to the country.
Cho Dae-hyun, a former Constitutional Court justice who recently joined Yoon’s legal team alongside former Justice Gong Sang-myeong, argued that the Democratic Party (DP)-led liberal majority in the National Assembly “unlawfully pushed for impeachment by accusing the president of inciting an insurrection” and that the CIO’s efforts to arrest him had prevented him from attending both hearings this week.
Bae Jin-han, another lawyer for the president, questioned how the charge of insurrection could apply to the president.
“This declaration of martial law took place peacefully, and the decree was lifted two hours later when the National Assembly voted to rescind it. Where was this supposed insurrection?” he asked.
Bae also argued that the deployment of troops to the National Election Commission’s offices was motivated by suspicions that the watchdog had mismanaged its early voting system and that China and North Korea had attempted to tamper with the April general election, where the DP won a landslide majority.
Bae spoke for about 20 minutes, leading acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae to declare a short recess and call on Yoon’s representatives to limit their remarks to under 10 minutes.
Moon later cut off lawyer Cha Gi-hwan as he attempted to speak for longer than the proscribed length of time.
BY SARAH KIM AND MICHAEL LEE [[email protected]]
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)