The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) announced on the 21st that President Yoon Suk-yeol was not included in the search and communication warrants requested from the Seoul Central District Court in the investigation process related to the declaration of 'Dec. 3 emergency martial law.'
The CIO stated in a notice that it had requested search warrants for suspects Yoon Suk-yeol and three others, as well as communication warrants for Yoon Suk-yeol and 32 others from the Seoul Central District Court. However, it explained that the targets of the search warrants did not include the president, the presidential residence, or the presidential office, with the focus instead on former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, key commanders, the Ministry of National Defense, the Army Headquarters, and the National Election Commission.
Earlier, President Yoon Suk-yeol's legal team held a press conference in Gangnam, Seoul, in the afternoon, saying, "It has been confirmed that the CIO requested search and communication warrants for the president and related individuals from the Seoul Central District Court, but they were rejected."
They added, "When the communication warrant was also rejected by the Seoul Central District Court, they went to the Western District Court to do warrant shopping," claiming, "They realized that only the Western District Court, where the chief judge and the presiding judges of warrant cases are all from the Our Law Research Group, could issue the warrants." The legal team also mentioned, "The head of the CIO is also from the Our Law Research Group."
The CIO requested a warrant for the arrest of President Yoon on Dec. 30 of last year. President Yoon's side later claimed territorial violation and filed for a review of the legality of his arrest, but the court deemed there was no issue.
The CIO also stated, "There has been no request for an arrest and detention warrant for suspect President Yoon Suk-yeol from the Seoul Central District Court," explaining that the reasons for the rejection of the search and communication warrants were related to the request to "coordinate in advance among the investigative agencies to avoid duplicating requests as similar or identical warrants are being requested."
They emphasized, "There was no mention among the rejection reasons that the CIO lacks investigative authority regarding insurrection charges," and stated, "The head of the CIO has no membership in the Our Law Research Group. We strongly urge not to distort the facts with falsehoods."