Prosecutors issued a no-charge disposition on various alleged illegalities by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), which investigated former President Yoon Suk-yeol for insurrection.
The Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (headed by chief prosecutor Shin Do-uk) said on the 23rd that it issued non-indictment dispositions on all of the numerous complaints and accusations raised over the CIO's investigation of the former president.
Specifically, prosecutors looked into: ▲ allegations that the CIO, after its request for an arrest warrant for the former president was rejected by the Seoul Central District Court, hid that fact and refiled an arrest warrant request with the Seoul Western District Court ▲ allegations that the CIO gave a false answer to the effect that it had never requested an arrest warrant related to the former president from the Seoul Central District Court ▲ and allegations over whether the CIO had the authority to investigate and arrest the former president.
However, regarding the "allegation of concealing a warrant request," prosecutors said that even after executing a search and seizure of the CIO, they confirmed there was no fact of an arrest warrant request having been filed with the Seoul Central District Court.
On the allegation of submitting a false answer to the National Assembly, it was confirmed that, although an internal CIO response had been prepared stating there had never been an "arrest warrant" request to the Central District Court for the former president, the person in charge mistakenly entered "warrant," in error.
It was found that, after learning the answer contained an error, a CIO official called the lawmaker's office to explain the mistake and correct it. With no other evidence found to recognize intent to create a false official document, prosecutors issued a no-suspicion disposition.
Complaints and accusations challenging the CIO's authority to investigate the crime of insurrection were all dismissed, taking into account that the court, in the trial on charges including the former president's alleged leadership of an insurrection, had already determined in effect that the CIO's authority to investigate insurrection is recognized.