The commotion surrounding the court's 'cancellation of arrest' concerning President Yoon Suk-yeol and the prosecution's 'abandonment of immediate appeal' is coming to an end after a week. The Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office stated on the 13th, 'There is no change in our previous position not to immediately appeal the cancellation of President Yoon's arrest,' effectively putting a period on the matter. The decision to cancel the arrest was made on the 7th, and the deadline for any immediate appeal is set to expire on the 14th.
Previously, the opposition strongly protested the prosecution's abandonment of the immediate appeal following the court's cancellation of arrest. Although the Prosecutor General repeatedly explained the reasons for abandoning the immediate appeal, the opposition declared plans for impeachment. In this context, the head of the Court Administration Office stated, 'The prosecution needs to receive a judgment from a higher court through an immediate appeal regarding the cancellation of arrest,' thus intensifying the controversy. Ultimately, with the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office definitively abandoning the immediate appeal, the situation was concluded, but concerns remain because doubts about whether the CIO has the authority to investigate the charge of rebellion led by President Yoon are not resolved.
◇ March 7, 2 p.m., cancellation decision… confusion arises over 'immediate release' status
The court made the decision to cancel President Yoon Suk-yeol's arrest around 2 p.m. on the 7th. It pointed out that the prosecution only charged him after surpassing the arrest period and emphasized the need to resolve doubts regarding the CIO's authority to investigate the charge of rebellion.
Some media outlets began publishing articles with the headline 'President Yoon's immediate release.' In response, President Yoon's legal team sent a message to the media saying, 'Even if the arrest is canceled, he will not be released immediately; if the prosecution files an immediate appeal, the arrest status will be maintained for the time being.' Nevertheless, confusion regarding the immediate release status continued for some time.
◇ March 8, 5:20 p.m., abandonment of immediate appeal… 'There was a conflict of opinions between the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office and the special investigation unit'
It took more than 27 hours for the prosecution to announce the abandonment of the immediate appeal regarding President Yoon's arrest cancellation. Just around 5:20 p.m. on the 8th, a day after the court's cancellation decision, the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office stated, 'We respect the court's decision and direct the release of President Yoon.' President Yoon was released from the Seoul Detention Center around 5:50 p.m. that day, 52 days after being arrested by the CIO.
It has been reported that there was a conflict of opinions between the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office and the special investigation unit regarding the process of deciding to abandon the immediate appeal. The Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office stated, 'We decided not to appeal immediately regarding the suspension of arrest execution, considering the constitutional court's past decision indicating that it would be unconstitutional.' However, the special investigation unit reportedly opposed this, stating, 'According to the criminal procedure law that allows for an immediate appeal regarding the cancellation of arrest, it is appropriate to initiate an immediate appeal and seek the court's judgment on this matter.'
◇ March 12, 2:40 p.m., Court Administration head remarks 'necessity for immediate appeal'
While the situation was settling down with the prosecution's abandonment of the immediate appeal regarding the court's cancellation of arrest, Choi Dae-yeop, the head of the Court Administration, stirred controversy. On the 12th, around 2:40 p.m. at the National Assembly's Legal and Judiciary Committee, he remarked, 'The prosecution needs to receive a judgment from a higher court through an immediate appeal regarding the cancellation of arrest.'
The prosecution remained silent for a while. Only around 7:12 p.m. that same day did they send a text message to the media stating, 'We are reviewing the situation regarding the Legal and Judiciary Committee. We cannot confirm specific matters.' Consequently, speculation arose that the prosecution might reverse its decision to abandon the immediate appeal.
◇ March 13, 1:10 p.m., prosecution maintains 'position of abandoning immediate appeal'
The next day, on the 13th, around 9 a.m., Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung told reporters on his way to work, 'There is nothing to say today.' Questions began to arise as to whether the final decision regarding the abandonment of the immediate appeal was being delayed.
Four hours later, around 1:10 p.m. that day, the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office sent a text message to the media stating, 'There is no change in our previous position not to immediately appeal the cancellation of President Yoon's arrest.' They provided the same reasoning as earlier for the decision to abandon the immediate appeal. This statement came nearly 23 hours after Head Choi's remarks at the National Assembly.
In response, a legal expert who is a former prosecutor stated, 'The prosecution displayed a hesitant attitude in finalizing the position of abandoning the immediate appeal against the cancelation of arrest. This issue could influence not only the trial regarding charges of rebellion but also the impeachment process, yet the prosecution took about a day for each of its two announcements regarding this matter.'
◇ Doubts remain regarding the CIO's authority to investigate the charge of rebellion
The judge of the Seoul Central District Court who decided to cancel President Yoon's arrest, Ji Gwi-yeon, stated, 'It is desirable to clarify the procedures and resolve any ambiguities regarding the legality of the investigation process.' This was a judgment concerning the defense team's assertion that the CIO does not have the authority to investigate the charge of rebellion. Judge Ji also stated, 'There is no clear regulation in related laws regarding whether the CIO, which has the authority to investigate abuse of power, can investigate rebellion-related crimes, and there is no final interpretation or judgment from the Supreme Court regarding this matter.'
Choi Dae-yeop, head of the Court Administration, also stated at the National Assembly's Legal and Judiciary Committee, 'Regarding the non-inclusion of the pre-arrest suspect interrogation period, our fundamental judgment is that it is a court matter that will be organized through a higher court's judgment because there is currently no existing precedent.' Earlier, Judge Ji asserted that the CIO detained President Yoon after exceeding the arrest period, explaining that the arrest period should be calculated based on 'hours' rather than 'days.' Head Choi commented, 'It seems that the judicial panel gave a judgment somewhat different from the practical aspects' and added, 'It appears that the strictest procedural approach was adopted among various opinions in scholarly discourse.'
In this regard, a legal expert stated, 'There are aspects in which the prosecution and the court did not initiate the first steps correctly regarding the charges of rebellion against President Yoon. If a joint investigation unit involving the police, prosecution, CIO, and military prosecution had been formed, there would have been no dispute over the investigation authority, as the current law grants investigation rights only to the police. Furthermore, the court should have demanded strict regulation of investigation authority concerning the warrants filed by various investigative agencies.'