January 23, 2025
Seoul – A judge at Seoul’s Western District Court cited a brief verdict that the suspect was concerned about tampering with evidence as a reason for issuing an arrest warrant against President Yoon Seok-yeol.
The judge did not mention the basis for the sentence or speculation about whether the charges were true, as judges typically do when issuing or denying such arrest warrants.
Taking into account the differences of public opinion on this serious issue and the possible outbreak of social conflict, the judge should give detailed reasons for the arrest. The lack of explanation has naturally led to heated discussions about evidence tampering. Tampering with evidence is not easy because rebel suspects are already in custody.
Yoon supporters suspect the judges of the Seoul Western District Court are ideologically aligned with the opposition Democratic Party of Korea, which recently recommended two judges from the Seoul Western District Court as new judges of the Constitutional Court to hear the impeachment case against Yoon. They also suspect that the Senior Officials Corruption Investigation Office chose the court for its own purposes when it requested an arrest warrant for Yoon. In principle, the office must apply for a search warrant from the Seoul Central District Court, the largest district court in South Korea.
Most importantly, the issuance of an arrest warrant for Yoon contrasts with the rejection of an arrest warrant for Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung. In September 2023, a judge did not issue an arrest warrant when reviewing whether to detain Lee on bribery charges because he was the leader of the main opposition party of concern to the people, although the judge speculated that the accusations may be true. The judge also ruled that the suspect’s right to defense should be protected.
The prison sentence for Cho Kook, leader of the small opposition Reconstruction Korea Party, was upheld on appeal, but he was not detained until after the Supreme Court ruling so that he could successfully run for parliament.
The ruling People's Power party argued that if the judiciary allowed a sitting president to be investigated while in custody, the same standards must apply to other political leaders. The court should respond adequately to this argument.
Yoon’s impeachment trial and related agency investigations have just begun, while the trial involving Lee Jae-yong has lasted for more than a year or two. His charge of soliciting perjury was a simple case, but the first-instance trial took a year and three months. Lee has been charged with 12 crimes and is on trial in eight cases.
Li was indicted for violating election laws in September 2022, but the principle of speedy trial was completely ignored. After prosecution, first-instance, second-instance and third-instance rulings must be made within six months, three months and three months respectively. The first ruling came only last November.
Lee's defense attorney stalled. If the Supreme Court upholds Lee's prison sentence in the election case, he will be unable to run for any elected office for 10 years. According to the law, the deadlines for the appeal and the Supreme Court's decision are February 15 and May 15 respectively. The appeal will begin on Thursday.
Lee's associate was sentenced to seven years and eight months in prison for his role in a business that secretly provided $8 million in cash to North Korea. Lee's trial has not yet begun.
The judiciary should avoid procedural flaws.
For this reason, Lee's trial must be expedited. CIOs should not be the source of controversy. By law, the agency can only investigate abuses of power and related crimes. It claims the rebellion can be investigated as a crime related to abuse of power, but experts dismiss this argument as a forced interpretation, likening it to the tail wagging the dog. The same goes for the Constitutional Court. There should be no consequences for controversial procedures.
