EN|FR|RU
Follow us on:

Yoon Suk-yeol in Custody

Konstantin Asmolov, January 21, 2025

For the first time in the country’s history, a sitting president has been arrested. However, the crisis does not end there.

Yoon Seok Yeol arrested, current president

The President of South Korea is suspected of orchestrating a coup and abusing power during the declaration of a state of emergency on December 3, 2024.

Initially, the investigation into the coup, which conservatives call “the martial law case”, was meant to involve several law enforcement agencies. However, on December 18, the priority was handed to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). This agency was originally established during President Moon Jae-in’s administration, ostensibly to protect high-level officials, including Moon himself, from criminal prosecution. As a result, the CIO has been predominantly staffed by officials with ties to the Democratic Party.

Yoon Suk Yeol the first sitting head of state to be held in a detention facility while retaining his official status

On the one hand, this high-ranking agency was created as a counterpart to the prosecutor’s office. On the other hand, it lacks the technical capacity to handle cases beyond corruption. Its involvement in a coup investigation against a sitting president is thus outside its formal mandate.

The First Arrest Attempt

The CIO summoned Yoon three times for questioning on December 18, 25, and 29 but he ignored all the subpoenas, refusing to authorize a representative or negotiate a revised schedule. On December 30, the CIO requested an arrest warrant, which the Seoul Western District Court issued the following day. A search warrant for the presidential residence in Yongsan, central Seoul, was also included.

On January 3, the first arrest attempt was made, but it failed after more than five hours of standoff with the Presidential Security Service (PSS). Over 200 PSS personnel formed a human barricade, preventing investigators from entering. According to Democratic Party claims, there was even a risk that the president’s security detail might open fire to prevent his arrest, as Yoon – despite being impeached – remained the head of state until the Constitutional Court issued its final ruling.

The Second Arrest Attempt

Yoon attempted to have the court warrants annulled, calling them illegal, but his petition was rejected on January 5. The CIO then issued a second arrest warrant on January 6.

On January 15, at 10:33 a.m., Yoon Suk-yeol was arrested approximately three hours after law enforcement entered the presidential residence. Unlike the first attempt, presidential security personnel did not offer significant resistance – although all sides were very fearful of bloodshed, it did not occur. Investigators used ladders to enter the grounds of the presidential residence after the Presidential Security Service created a barricade of vehicles at the entrance, but there was no physical resistance.

Yoon stated that he decided to cooperate to avoid “bloodshed” between law enforcement and his security detail. “I chose to participate in questioning, even though I consider the investigation illegal… The rule of law is not being upheld in this country. I sincerely hope no citizen will have to endure such injustice in future criminal proceedings”, he said.

In practice, Yoon Suk Yeol and his legal team spent several hours resisting investigators, disputing the procedural aspects of the criminal investigation into the charges of organizing a rebellion. The president attempted to delay the process by requesting to voluntarily appear for questioning, which was immediately denied. Nevertheless, he was not escorted in handcuffs and arrived at the interrogation in a service vehicle.

Legal Battles Following the Arrest

The first interrogation began at 11:00 a.m. and lasted two and a half hours. According to an investigative representative, the detained president exercised his right to remain silent and refused to answer the investigators’ questions. He maintained his position that the CIO lacks jurisdiction to investigate crimes such as rebellion, as charged, and that the execution of the warrant for his compelled questioning was unlawful. As the democratic-leaning media sarcastically noted, Yoon only “opened his mouth” during a dinner break. The following day, he continued the same approach. Consequently, it is expected that the CIO will seek authorization to formally detain the president based on the available evidence.

On January 16, the court rejected the defense’s motion to declare the CIO’s actions in executing the detention warrant against Yoon Suk Yeol unlawful. In their appeal, the attorneys argued that the CIO does not have the authority to conduct such an investigation (under charges of rebellion) and that entering Yoon’s residence to detain him based on an invalid warrant was illegal. However, the court ruled that the CIO does have the right to pursue the rebellion case.

Following this decision, the CIO filed a petition with the Seoul Western District Court requesting formal detention for President Yoon Suk Yeol. The petition alleged that Yoon was involved in leading the rebellion, abusing his authority, and obstructing the exercise of rights. Additionally, it claimed that he conspired with former Defense Minister Kim Young Hyun to introduce “unconstitutional and unlawful martial law”, incited an uprising to undermine the state’s constitution, and declared martial law in the absence of a military or emergency situation. The petition further accused Yoon of mobilizing armed forces and police to block parliament from repealing martial law and attempting to detain key political figures in the country.

On January 18, a court hearing was held to decide whether to issue a formal arrest warrant for the president. The session lasted approximately five hours. Yoon attended the hearing and was subsequently returned to the detention center amidst a protest of around 12,000 supporters outside the courthouse.

Following the hearing, the court (as anticipated) issued an arrest warrant, making Yoon Suk Yeol the first sitting head of state to be held in a detention facility while retaining his official status. Yoon is now officially under suspicion of conspiracy to stage a rebellion and abuse of power during the imposition of martial law. He is expected to be transferred to a cell measuring less than five square meters. Investigators now have 20 days to gather evidence and submit the case to prosecutors for formal charges.

How is the Constitutional Court doing?

The first preliminary hearing in the Constitutional Court of South Korea regarding the impeachment of Yoon Suk Yeol, which lasted about 40 minutes, took place on December 27.

Presiding Judge Jeong Hyun-sik reviewed the main reasons for the vote of no confidence and highlighted contentious issues, including Yoon’s declaration of martial law, its enforcement by his command, the mobilization of police and military forces to block the National Assembly, unlawful entry and searches in the National Election Commission without a warrant, and attempts to arrest political figures and members of the judiciary.

Yoon Suk Yeol’s defense (comprising two groups of lawyers—one focusing on the rebellion charges and the other on the impeachment issue) responded by claiming that the head of state instructed his officials to avoid conflicts with civilians at all costs and never ordered anyone to “arrest”, “seize”, or “remove from the building” members of the National Assembly. However, this contradicts statements made by Police Chief Cho Ji-ho, former Deputy Director of the NIS Hong Jang-won, and two senior officials from the Ministry of Defense, who alleged that Yoon gave direct orders to arrest/detain members of parliament.

Furthermore, the lawyers emphasized that Yoon prioritizes the impeachment hearings in the Constitutional Court, where he intends to “clarify his position to the judges and the people”, over the investigation into the rebellion case. The president aims to defend himself during the judicial proceedings.

On January 16, the Constitutional Court held a second hearing on the impeachment case against President Yoon Suk Yeol. Yoon’s defense argued that the no-confidence motion initiated by the opposition-controlled parliament was part of a politically motivated campaign to remove a democratically elected president. Meanwhile, representatives of the National Assembly insisted on the president’s removal, claiming that he violated the Constitution and the Martial Law Act.

On the same day, the Constitutional Court selected former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun and a group of high-ranking military commanders (including former Deputy Director of the NIS Hong Jang-won, National Police Agency Commissioner General Cho Ji-ho, Military Counterintelligence Chief Ye In-hyeon, and Commander of the Army Special Operations Command Kwak Jeong-geun) as witnesses in the impeachment case.

CCTV footage was accepted as evidence, showing troops under martial law entering the National Assembly, the National Election Commission, and the residence of National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik on the night martial law was declared or conducting surveillance on these locations during the impeachment process.

The court also granted the defense team’s request to access certain internal information from the Election Commission related to Yoon’s claims that election fraud was one of the reasons for declaring martial law.

If court officials issue an arrest warrant, Yoon will become the first sitting president in South Korea’s constitutional history to be officially arrested. The official arrest would allow investigators to extend his detention period by up to 20 days, during which they would submit the case to prosecutors for indictment.

In the event of a refusal, the embattled president would be released and return to his residence, bolstering his claims that the ongoing investigations into his declaration of martial law and impeachment are unfounded.

It is unlikely that Yoon’s arrest will soon resolve the deepening political turmoil and social divide. As media outlets have noted, “both Yoon and the CIO share responsibility for the dramatic confrontation that led to this arrest. It is regrettable that neither side pursued pragmatic compromises that could have eased political tensions”.

 

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of China and Modern Asia, Russian Academy of Sciences

More on this topic
Impeachment After Impeachment: South Korea’s Constitutional Crisis Continues
The domestic political situation in South Korea: What controversial moves has the President made and what was the reason for such a decision?
South Korea- a concession?
ROK After Parliamentary Elections
How South Korea celebrated the 105th Anniversary of the March First Independence Movement