March 10, 2025
Seoul – President Yoon Suk Yeol was released Saturday after accepting his request to overturn his request for a brief killing of his martial arts in early December.
Yoon has been detained since January 15 on allegations of uprising related to his Dec. 3 Martial Arts Declaration, which has plunged South Korea into political turmoil, state divisions and economic uncertainty.
On Saturday, a special investigation team prosecuted ordered Yoon to be released at the Seoul Detention Centre in UIWANG, Gyonggi Province. The move comes a day after Seoul's central district court approved Yoon's request to cancel the arrest last month.
Yoon's release on Saturday marked a critical moment in the country's ongoing political crisis, although it's unclear whether this will affect the outcome of the final impeachment ruling the Constitutional Court deserves.
The District Court ruling and the lifting of the Monte show that there are legal issues in the way the office of prosecution and senior officials handles Yoon's impeachment case.
There is no doubt that Yoon suddenly announced martial law, allegedly a warning to the national crisis caused by South Korea's major opposition Democratic Party, went too far in many ways. That's why the National Assembly impeached each on December 14.
However, the prosecution process and detention periods on prosecution have raised questions and controversy, which has exacerbated political disputes between rule and opposition parties.
As for the release order, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that the indictment of January 26 filed after the detention period expires is a reason for the cancellation of custody.
The prosecutor calculates the detention period based on the calendar day. However, the court ruled that the period should be measured in hours and that by this standard, the prosecutor had exceeded the initial 10-day detention limit when prosecuting Yoon on the allegations of revolt.
The court also found that in addition to the technical issues of time calculation, there was another key issue. Even if the indictment was filed during the detention period, the court ruled that there was no clear legal provision to grant CIO jurisdiction over the uprising case, which justified the cancellation of Yoon Detention Center.
In Yoon's case, the CIO investigated his alleged uprising and prosecuted the prosecution. Given the legal ambiguity surrounding the authority of the CIO in this case, the court believes it is appropriate to release Yoon out of prison before the trial is held.
The court warned that advancing trials without resolving legal disputes could justify cases of appeal or future retrial.
Critics earlier pointed out that the investigation into Yoon Won was full of legal issues from the outset. Under current law, only police have jurisdiction over the uprising case. But the prosecutors and CIOs actively filed the case in the early stages, even if they lack the necessary authority.
Another fundamental question to think about is that the ambiguous scope of investigations of CIOs may continue to cause legal issues and political conflicts.
Although Yoon will now be tried without physical detention, the dispute is expected to continue until the final ruling of the Constitutional Court on its impeachment until the final ruling is issued by the Constitutional Court.
Given the explosiveness of ongoing political unrest, political parties must avoid wasted battles and impose compulsive forces on the Constitutional Court. After all, what the country needs now is to ensure that all procedures strictly comply with the law, thus eliminating any reason for future disputes.
