Table of Contents
Lawyers for South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol and the Corruption Investigation Office (CIO) for high-ranking officials investigating his short-lived martial law decree on December 3 are at odds over whether the CIO has jurisdiction over the arrested Have the right to do so and file criminal charges against them. Him.
Here’s what we know so far:
Who are the investigators?
The CIO is leading a joint investigation team involving police and the defense ministry and is seeking charges of rebellion and abuse of power against Yoon, among others, while prosecutors conduct their own investigation.
The CIO was launched in January 2021 as an independent anti-corruption agency to investigate high-ranking officials, including the President and his family members, as part of efforts to rein in prosecutors.
But its powers to investigate and prosecute are limited. It does not have the authority to prosecute the President and is required to refer the case to the Prosecutor’s Office to take any action, including impeachment, after the inquiry is over.
What is Yun’s argument?
Yoon’s lawyers have said the CIO does not have the authority to handle his case because the law sets out an exhaustive list of high-ranking officials and violations it can investigate, but makes no mention of the rebellion.
The lawyers also said that the arrest warrant granted by the Seoul District Court was unconstitutional because it specified that the warrant was exempted from two sections of the Criminal Procedure Act that cover confidential military information, or the possession of a place under the control of a public official. Limits seizures and searches. Keeping official secrets, without providing a legal basis.
Yoon’s team has filed a complaint and injunction with the Constitutional Court to review the legality of the warrant, although the Seoul Western District Court, which issued the warrant, rejected a similar complaint on Sunday.
On Friday, Presidential Security Service and military guards prevented CIO investigators from arresting Yoon in a six-hour standoff. The head of the security service, Park Chong-jun, said on Sunday that the security service could not cooperate on the warrant, citing the CIO’s investigative powers and legal debate over the validity of the warrant.
What is the post of CIO, Police?
The CIO said it had secured the right to take on Yoon’s case by obtaining an arrest warrant, and that two sections of the Criminal Procedure Act did not apply because the warrant was limited to arresting him, not seizing his property.
But the agency said Monday that it had requested police to take over the enforcement of the warrant, considering that “there should not be the slightest possibility of controversy in a case of such serious nature.”
A police officer admitted that there was a legal dispute over such a transfer and the police officer would discuss it with the CIO.
Seok Dong-hyeon, a lawyer advising Yoon, said the bid to shift the execution of the warrant is effectively an admission by the CIO that its investigation and the warrant were “illegal.”
What do the courts say?
The Constitutional Court said Thursday that it would begin reviewing the complaint and injunction filed by Yoon’s lawyers as soon as a judge is appointed.
The Seoul Western District Court rejected a similar complaint on Sunday, saying it was not illegal for the CIO to handle Yoon’s case because the charges of abuse of power covered by the agency include rebellion.
It also states that the warrant’s exemption from two Criminal Procedure Act sections confirms that the purpose of any search was to arrest the defendant, not to seize his belongings, and that a judge must approve the warrant. It was not unconstitutional to specify this at the time of giving.
Yoon’s lawyers criticized the court’s statement as “sophistry” and said they would consider appealing the decision to a higher court.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
