Yoon's Side Files Objection to Arrest and Search Warrants in Court... "Request to Deny Execution"

No Clear Regulations on 'Iuisincheong' (Objection Submission)

The office of President Yoon Suk-yeol has filed an objection with the court, requesting a refusal to execute the arrest and search warrants issued on charges of being the ringleader of a rebellion and abuse of authority.

On the 2nd, Yoon’s attorney Yoon Gap-geun stated, "The arrest and search warrants issued on December 31 of last year violate the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, making their execution impossible," and announced that an objection had been submitted to the Seoul Western District Court.

The president’s side raised issues regarding the execution of the warrants based on the quasi-appeal provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. A quasi-appeal is a procedure allowing prosecutors to request cancellation or modification of detention or seizure orders from the competent court. It appears this was utilized because there is no separate system to appeal the issuance of an arrest warrant.

The legal team argued that the process of issuing the arrest and search warrants excluded the application of the Criminal Procedure Act and exceeded legal authority.

President Yoon’s legal representatives stated, "According to Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, places and objects related to the president’s duties and person are considered military secrets and official secrets, and therefore cannot be searched or seized without consent. Consent may be refused if it harms the nation’s significant interests." They also claimed, "The court’s arbitrary exclusion of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act when issuing the warrants was an illegal act without legal basis, and the warrants are invalid."

However, since the objection itself is not a procedure specified in the Criminal Procedure Act, controversy over its legal validity is expected.

President Yoon Suk-yeol

Currently, it is highly likely that the objection will be reviewed directly by Judge Lee Soon-hyung, the chief judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Western District Court who originally issued the warrants. This is due to the procedural characteristic that the judge who first issued the warrants makes the subsequent decision, rather than a higher court, another judge, or a collegiate panel.

Under current law, an objection is a method of appealing a decision within the same level of trial, not an appeal to a higher court. While objection procedures are institutionalized in civil cases, they are not clearly defined for criminal cases. In South Korea, regarding warrants, if a warrant is dismissed, reapplication is allowed. If issued, there is a procedure to seek a review of appropriateness.

Previously, the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Office (Gongu-cheo) requested arrest and search warrants after President Yoon refused to appear for questioning three times. On December 31 of last year, Judge Lee Soon-hyung of the Seoul Western District Court issued the warrants, citing the charge of being the ringleader of a rebellion as the main offense.

In response, President Yoon’s side argued that Gongu-cheo does not have investigative authority over the crime of rebellion, claiming that the issuance of the warrants infringed on presidential authority, and has filed a constitutional dispute adjudication with the Constitutional Court along with a request for a provisional suspension of the warrants’ effect.