Home > National > Politics

Court's revocation of Yoon's arrest draws mixed political reactions

Published: 07 Mar. 2025, 19:06 Updated: 08 Mar. 2025, 15:11

CHO JUNG-WOO
[email protected]

President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the 10th hearing of his impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 20. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

A Seoul court on Friday granted the release of President Yoon Suk Yeol, immediately drawing contrasting reactions from political circles.

Yoon’s attorneys immediately welcomed the court's decision, calling it proof that the “rule of law is alive” in the country.

In a statement, Yoon’s legal defense team denounced the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO)’s “illegal” investigation and “unlawful” arrest. The attorneys called on authorities to “immediately order his release,” citing the Criminal Procedure Act.

The presidential office also welcomed the decision, saying that the CIO’s “illegal” investigation — conducted without proper investigative authority — had been “belatedly corrected.”

In response, the liberal Democratic Party (DP) convened an emergency leadership meeting and urged prosecutors to “immediately appeal” Yoon’s release, calling him the “mastermind” of an insurrection.

DP spokesperson Han Min-soo told reporters after the meeting that the court’s ruling “would not affect” Yoon’s impeachment trial.

Following the court’s decision, Yoon's conservative People Power Party (PPP) criticized the CIO for executing “unlawful” warrants to detain Yoon.

Oh Dong-woon, the head of Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) attends a parliamentary questioning at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Feb. 25. [NEWS1]

“CIO officials, including its chief, should all take responsibility,” PPP floor leader Kweon Seong-dong said at a press conference at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Friday.

He also argued that prosecutors’ potential appeal against the ruling was “unconstitutional,” citing a 2012 decision that the prosecution cannot undo the revocation of a suspect’s arrest.

In response, the CIO said in a press release that the court had not deemed its investigation unlawful but had merely summarized the defendant’s claims.

The Seoul Central District Court approved Yoon’s request to revoke his detention, filed on Feb. 4, after determining that prosecutors had indicted Yoon beyond the expiry of his legal detention period.

The court decided the legal duration of Yoon’s detention should be calculated in hours, not calendar days, as prosecutors had argued.

People Power Party (PPP) floor leader Kweon Seong-dong, left, speaks during an emergency press conference at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on March 7. [YONHAP]

The court reviewed the request to revoke Yoon's arrest on Feb. 20. Yoon has been detained at the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi, since Jan. 15 over his brief imposition of martial law last December.

Yoon was first detained by the CIO at 10:33 a.m. on Jan. 15, and the period during which he could held in custody was originally due to end at midnight on Jan. 24.

The Seoul Western District Court issued his formal arrest warrant at 2:53 a.m. on Jan 19, 33 hours and 7 minutes after it received the CIO’s investigation records for review on Jan. 17.

According to the Seoul Central District Court, this delay extended Yoon’s detention to 9:07 a.m. on Jan. 26 at 9:07 a.m. However, prosecutors only filed their indictment at 6:52 p.m.

The CIO and prosecution had argued that Yoon’s initial 10-day custody period was extended to Jan. 27 by his Jan. 16 challenge against the agency’s right to detain him and the length of his warrant review session.

In addition to ruling in Yoon’s favor regarding the length of his detention period, court also questioned whether the CIO has the authority to investigate insurrection charges.

It further noted the CIO and the state prosecution, which are two independent investigative bodies, split Yoon’s arrest period without legal grounds and failed to follow proper custody transfer procedures.

Under the Criminal Procedure Act, prosecutors have seven days to appeal a court’s decision to revoke an arrest.

BY CHO JUNG-WOO [[email protected]]