'Yoon's Arrest Prevention' Kim Seonghun's Side Submits Opinion Letter to Prosecution Requesting 'Rejection of Arrest Warrant'

"No Abuse of Authority Found"

The side of Kim Seong-hoon, deputy chief of the Security Office, who is accused of obstructing the arrest of President Yoon Seok-yeol, has submitted a written opinion to the prosecution requesting the rejection of the arrest warrant.

On the 14th, Kim's lawyer submitted a written opinion to the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office stating that the police's application for an arrest warrant for Kim should be rejected.

The opinion argued that the High-ranking Officials' Crimes Investigation Division (Gongsucheo) does not have the authority to investigate the crime of rebellion, and that the issuance and execution of the arrest and detention warrants against President Yoon were illegal, so the charge of obstruction of official duties should not be applied to Kim, who prevented it.

It also denied the allegations that Kim abused his authority under the Act on the Protection of the President, etc., by taking disciplinary measures against Security Office staff who did not follow his orders to prevent the arrest, stating that there was no abuse of power.

Kim Seong-hoon, Deputy Director of the Presidential Security Service, Yonhap News Agency

Furthermore, it added that Kim has a fixed residence, and that a search warrant for his mobile phone has already been executed, so there is no concern about evidence destruction or flight risk.

The police special investigation team for emergency martial law applied for arrest warrants to the Western District Prosecutors' Office the day before for Kim, who is accused of obstruction of official duties, and Lee Kwang-woo, head of the Security Headquarters.

The police's application for arrest warrants for Kim and Lee, who are considered hardliners within the Security Office, is the third and second time, respectively.

On the 24th of last month, the police applied for arrest warrants for both on the same charges, but the prosecution rejected them, requesting supplementary investigation regarding the abuse of authority charge under the Presidential Security Act.

The police reportedly conducted additional supplementary investigations on the disciplinary measures by questioning personnel in charge of Security Office appointments as witnesses.