A fragmented system, legal chaos and President Yoon
Published: 27 Jan. 2025, 00:01
Prosecutors are expected to indict President Yoon Suk-yeol on charges of leading an insurrection without conducting additional investigations. After receiving the case from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), prosecutors applied on Jan. 24 for an extension of President Yoon's arrest warrant at the Seoul Central District Court. However, the court rejected the request, stating that under the principle of separation between investigation and prosecution, there was insufficient justification for further investigation into a case already handled by the CIO. The court cited a lack of clear legal grounds in the CIO Act. A second application for an extension filed the following day was similarly denied.
The entire process of arresting, detaining and indicting President Yoon has sparked significant controversy, deepening public confusion. Of particular concern is President Yoon's uncooperative stance toward the investigation, which appears to obfuscate the retrogressive nature of the martial law declared on Dec. 3. On Jan. 23, during the fourth impeachment hearing at the Constitutional Court, Yoon's defense team astonishingly claimed that "the public perceives martial law as an enlightening directive." Furthermore, former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun testified that "it was meant to remove operatives [soldiers, not lawmakers]," in a statement that defies common sense.
The shortcomings of reforms enacted during the Moon Jae-in administration, including the establishment of the CIO and the stripping of prosecutorial investigative authority, have exacerbated the turmoil. Critics warned at the time that the changes would impede investigations into serious crimes, a prediction that has now come true. Following the Dec. 3 martial law incident, the CIO, the prosecution and the National Office of Investigation (NOI) all engaged in competitive investigations until the CIO exercised its authority to take over the case. At that point, the CIO and the prosecution agreed to split the 20-day detention period evenly, with the prosecution handling the latter half. However, this arrangement lacked any legal basis, as underscored by the court's rulings.
Additionally, the CIO has been criticized for its narrow focus on President Yoon's initial arrest, which reportedly left it unprepared to secure the evidence needed for the prosecution’s indictment. The absence of clear legal provisions outlining whether supplemental investigations can be conducted during the transfer of cases between the CIO and the prosecution has further highlighted gaps in the system.
As direct investigations into President Yoon faltered, prosecutors convened a meeting of chief prosecutors nationwide to discuss next steps and ultimately decided to move forward with the indictment. Prosecutors believe that evidence secured during the detention of the former defense minister and other key military officials involved in implementing martial law will suffice to substantiate President Yoon’s charges of insurrection.
Whether the Dec. 3 martial law constitutes an insurrection aimed at disrupting constitutional order will ultimately be determined by the courts. Prosecutors must now dedicate themselves entirely to preparing for trial and maintaining the charges in court. President Yoon, who has refused to cooperate with the investigation, must fulfill his promise to participate fully in the legal process and be held accountable under the law.
Separately, there is a pressing need to reexamine the current fragmented investigative system, which is divided among the police, prosecution and the CIO, and consider alternatives that better align with the principle of separating investigation and prosecution. Public confidence in the rule of law depends on resolving these systemic flaws.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
The entire process of arresting, detaining and indicting President Yoon has sparked significant controversy, deepening public confusion. Of particular concern is President Yoon's uncooperative stance toward the investigation, which appears to obfuscate the retrogressive nature of the martial law declared on Dec. 3. On Jan. 23, during the fourth impeachment hearing at the Constitutional Court, Yoon's defense team astonishingly claimed that "the public perceives martial law as an enlightening directive." Furthermore, former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun testified that "it was meant to remove operatives [soldiers, not lawmakers]," in a statement that defies common sense.
The shortcomings of reforms enacted during the Moon Jae-in administration, including the establishment of the CIO and the stripping of prosecutorial investigative authority, have exacerbated the turmoil. Critics warned at the time that the changes would impede investigations into serious crimes, a prediction that has now come true. Following the Dec. 3 martial law incident, the CIO, the prosecution and the National Office of Investigation (NOI) all engaged in competitive investigations until the CIO exercised its authority to take over the case. At that point, the CIO and the prosecution agreed to split the 20-day detention period evenly, with the prosecution handling the latter half. However, this arrangement lacked any legal basis, as underscored by the court's rulings.
Additionally, the CIO has been criticized for its narrow focus on President Yoon's initial arrest, which reportedly left it unprepared to secure the evidence needed for the prosecution’s indictment. The absence of clear legal provisions outlining whether supplemental investigations can be conducted during the transfer of cases between the CIO and the prosecution has further highlighted gaps in the system.
As direct investigations into President Yoon faltered, prosecutors convened a meeting of chief prosecutors nationwide to discuss next steps and ultimately decided to move forward with the indictment. Prosecutors believe that evidence secured during the detention of the former defense minister and other key military officials involved in implementing martial law will suffice to substantiate President Yoon’s charges of insurrection.
Whether the Dec. 3 martial law constitutes an insurrection aimed at disrupting constitutional order will ultimately be determined by the courts. Prosecutors must now dedicate themselves entirely to preparing for trial and maintaining the charges in court. President Yoon, who has refused to cooperate with the investigation, must fulfill his promise to participate fully in the legal process and be held accountable under the law.
Separately, there is a pressing need to reexamine the current fragmented investigative system, which is divided among the police, prosecution and the CIO, and consider alternatives that better align with the principle of separating investigation and prosecution. Public confidence in the rule of law depends on resolving these systemic flaws.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)