Yoon’s release underscores the importance of procedural legitimacy
Published: 10 Mar. 2025, 00:00
President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was detained on charges of leading an insurrection, was released following a court decision to cancel his detention on Saturday. However, it is difficult to conclude that all legal controversies surrounding the case have been fully resolved.
![President Yoon Suk Yeol greets supporters as he arrives in front of the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Yongsan District, central Seoul, on March 8. He was released from the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi, some 52 days after he was first taken into custody. [NEWS1]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/03/10/11f86e94-44da-4476-b56e-13b74252f900.jpg)
The Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 25 based its ruling on two key points. First, when calculated in hours, Yoon’s indictment exceeded the 10-day detention period stipulated under the Criminal Procedure Act. Second, questions over whether the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) has the authority to investigate insurrection charges remain.
The ruling highlights procedural flaws in the investigative process. As the court indicated, concerns about legal clarity and due process must be addressed. In this sense, the decision presents a broader challenge of refining ambiguous judicial procedures.
Nevertheless, lingering questions have been amplified over the ruling. If other criminal defendants were indicted beyond the stipulated detention period, as in Yoon’s case, would their detentions also be retroactively nullified? Depending on how this issue is handled, it could introduce significant confusion into the criminal justice system. Another concern is that the decision contradicts the previous ruling by the Seoul Western District Court, which had recognized the CIO’s investigative authority and consequently issued an arrest and detention warrant for Yoon.
![Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, center in the first row, and other lawmakers from his party hold up placards while calling for Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung's resignation at the National Assembly on March 9. [NEWS1]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/03/10/a5e0f145-3679-4610-94c6-0f08756212f0.jpg)
![Supporters of President Yoon Suk Yeol take part in a rally led by conservative activist pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon near the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Yongsan District, central Seoul on March 9. [NEWS1]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/03/10/5a3ac280-6959-4f2c-bf3e-da1d6cd38779.jpg)
In light of these legal inconsistencies, some argue that the prosecution should have filed an immediate appeal to seek a higher court’s judgment. The prosecution, however, explained that it refrained from doing so in accordance with a Constitutional Court ruling, which found it unconstitutional for prosecutors to neutralize court decisions on bail or a suspension of detention through immediate appeals. Yet, under the Criminal Procedure Act, if an immediate appeal is permitted, an ordinary appeal is not an option. As a result, Yoon’s release has foreclosed any opportunity for the higher court to deliberate on the calculation of detention periods and the CIO’s investigative authority. This ruling has left many citizens confused, and it is now imperative for both the courts and the prosecution to explore ways to resolve these issues.
From the outset, concerns over procedural legitimacy have dogged the investigation into Yoon. The CIO initially pursued him on charges of abuse of power but later expanded the probe after claiming to have uncovered insurrection-related offenses. However, legal experts have debated whether this reasoning holds up, given that a sitting president can only be criminally prosecuted for insurrection or treason. The loopholes in the law relating to the CIO stem from the Moon Jae-in administration’s rushed efforts to curtail prosecutorial authority, resulting in a vague and inconsistent legal framework. These legislative shortcomings have now surfaced in the investigation and trial of the highest authority in the nation on insurrection charges.
At this stage, ensuring procedural clarity and legitimacy in the trial process is paramount. The judicial system’s ambiguities must also be swiftly addressed. The country is already deeply divided, with citizens pouring into the streets in response to martial law declarations and impeachment proceedings. If judicial procedures themselves are seen as lacking legitimacy, any verdict — regardless of its nature — will inevitably fuel further discord and division.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
President Yoon Suk Yeol greets supporters as he arrives in front of the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Yongsan District, central Seoul, on March 8. He was released from the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi, some 52 days after he was first taken into custody. [NEWS1]
The Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 25 based its ruling on two key points. First, when calculated in hours, Yoon’s indictment exceeded the 10-day detention period stipulated under the Criminal Procedure Act. Second, questions over whether the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) has the authority to investigate insurrection charges remain.
The ruling highlights procedural flaws in the investigative process. As the court indicated, concerns about legal clarity and due process must be addressed. In this sense, the decision presents a broader challenge of refining ambiguous judicial procedures.
Nevertheless, lingering questions have been amplified over the ruling. If other criminal defendants were indicted beyond the stipulated detention period, as in Yoon’s case, would their detentions also be retroactively nullified? Depending on how this issue is handled, it could introduce significant confusion into the criminal justice system. Another concern is that the decision contradicts the previous ruling by the Seoul Western District Court, which had recognized the CIO’s investigative authority and consequently issued an arrest and detention warrant for Yoon.
Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, center in the first row, and other lawmakers from his party hold up placards while calling for Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung's resignation at the National Assembly on March 9. [NEWS1]
Supporters of President Yoon Suk Yeol take part in a rally led by conservative activist pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon near the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Yongsan District, central Seoul on March 9. [NEWS1]
In light of these legal inconsistencies, some argue that the prosecution should have filed an immediate appeal to seek a higher court’s judgment. The prosecution, however, explained that it refrained from doing so in accordance with a Constitutional Court ruling, which found it unconstitutional for prosecutors to neutralize court decisions on bail or a suspension of detention through immediate appeals. Yet, under the Criminal Procedure Act, if an immediate appeal is permitted, an ordinary appeal is not an option. As a result, Yoon’s release has foreclosed any opportunity for the higher court to deliberate on the calculation of detention periods and the CIO’s investigative authority. This ruling has left many citizens confused, and it is now imperative for both the courts and the prosecution to explore ways to resolve these issues.
From the outset, concerns over procedural legitimacy have dogged the investigation into Yoon. The CIO initially pursued him on charges of abuse of power but later expanded the probe after claiming to have uncovered insurrection-related offenses. However, legal experts have debated whether this reasoning holds up, given that a sitting president can only be criminally prosecuted for insurrection or treason. The loopholes in the law relating to the CIO stem from the Moon Jae-in administration’s rushed efforts to curtail prosecutorial authority, resulting in a vague and inconsistent legal framework. These legislative shortcomings have now surfaced in the investigation and trial of the highest authority in the nation on insurrection charges.
At this stage, ensuring procedural clarity and legitimacy in the trial process is paramount. The judicial system’s ambiguities must also be swiftly addressed. The country is already deeply divided, with citizens pouring into the streets in response to martial law declarations and impeachment proceedings. If judicial procedures themselves are seen as lacking legitimacy, any verdict — regardless of its nature — will inevitably fuel further discord and division.
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)