By Hyonhee Shin
SEOUL (Reuters) – South Korean investigators arrested impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol on Wednesday for alleged sedition over his push to impose martial law, ending weeks of defiance and claims by Yoon and his lawyers that the arrest warrant was invalid.
Yoon and the Corruption Perceptions Office (CIO), which is investigating his short-lived Dec. 3 state of emergency, are at odds over whether the CIO has the power to arrest and file criminal charges against the president.
Authorities now have 48 hours to question Yoon, before seeking a warrant to detain him for up to 20 days or release him.
Here’s what we know so far about his arrest:
WHO ARE THE RESEARCHERS?
The CIO is leading a joint investigation team that includes the police and the defense ministry seeking charges of sedition 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 that investigates high-ranking officials, including the president, and their family members as part of efforts to rein in prosecutors.
But his rights to investigate and prosecute are limited. She does not have the authority to prosecute the president and is required to refer the case to prosecutors to take any action, including indictments, after the questioning is over.
WHAT IS YOO’S ARGUMENT?
On Wednesday, Yoon said he surrendered to questioning to avoid bloodshed despite what he called the illegality of the investigation and arrest.
Yoon’s lawyers said the CIO did not have the authority to handle his case since the law prescribes an extensive list of high-ranking officials and violations it can investigate, but does not mention rebellion.
Prosecutors capable of investigating sedition charges are conducting a separate investigation into Yoon.
The lawyers also said the arrest warrant issued by the Seoul District Court was unconstitutional because it said the warrant was exempt from two provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code that limit the seizure and search of places subject to classified military information or a public official’s possession of an official secret, without providing a legal basis.
They said any criminal investigation should be conducted after the Constitutional Court holds a trial on Yoon’s impeachment and decides whether to permanently remove him from office.
Yoon’s team filed a complaint and injunction with the Constitutional Court to review the warrant’s legitimacy, though the Seoul Western District Court that issued the warrant dismissed a similar complaint.
On January 3, the Presidential Security Service and military guards prevented CIO investigators from arresting Yoon in a six-hour standoff. His boss at the time, Park Chong-jun, said the security service could not cooperate on the warrant, citing a legal dispute over the CIO’s investigative rights and the warrant’s validity.
WHAT IS THE ATTITUDE OF THE CIO, THE POLICE?
The CIO said it had secured the right to take over Yoon’s case by obtaining an arrest warrant, and two provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply because the warrant was limited to his arrest and not to confiscating his property.
But the agency apologized for initially failing to arrest Yoon and asked the police to take over the execution of the warrant, based on its consideration that “a case as serious as this should not leave even the slightest possibility of controversy.”
Police admitted there was a legal dispute over such a transfer, but said they would consult the CIO.
The CIO and the police held multiple meetings to discuss how to enforce the order after securing the re-issue of the order on January 7.
Seok Dong-hyeon, Yoon’s legal adviser, said the offer to transfer execution of the warrant was effectively an admission by the CIO that its investigation and warrant were “illegal.”
WHAT DO THE COURTS SAY?
On Monday, the Constitutional Court said it was considering the complaint and injunction filed by Yoon’s lawyers.
The Western District Court in Seoul, which had previously dismissed a similar suit, said it was not illegal for the CIO to handle Yoon’s case because the sedition allegations were included in the abuse of power charges covered by the agency.
It also stated that the exemption of the warrant from two clauses of the Criminal Procedure Code appeared to confirm that any search it might involve was aimed at the arrest of the defendant, not the seizure of his belongings, and that it was not unconstitutional for a judge to state this when granting a warrant .
Yoon’s lawyers criticized the court’s statement as “sophism” and said they would consider appealing the decision to a higher court.
