Although the Special Investigation Headquarters Suggested an "Immediate Appeal,"
Supreme Prosecutors' Office Decides Not to File, Citing Constitutional Court Ruling
However, States "Court's Calculation of Detention Period Is Unjust... Will Actively Argue in Main Trial"
The prosecution, having received the court's decision to cancel the detention of President Yoon Seok-yeol, sent a release directive to Seoul Detention Center within 27 hours. With the internal fierce debate over filing an immediate appeal abandoned, President Yoon went through the prescribed release procedures, left Seoul Detention Center, and headed to the official residence.
On the 8th, the Special Investigation Headquarters for Emergency Martial Law under the prosecution (Head: Park Se-hyun, Chief Prosecutor of Seoul High Prosecutors' Office) announced in the afternoon, "We have sent the release directive for President Yoon to Seoul Detention Center." This came 52 days after he was arrested by the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (Public Officials Corruption Investigation Office, or POGO) on January 15. President Yoon was indicted while in detention by the prosecution on January 26. It appears that the prosecution's special investigation team failed to enforce their position to file an immediate appeal.
Following the court's decision to cancel detention the previous day, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office held an executive meeting to discuss immediate appeals but concluded to proceed with the release directive for President Yoon. However, the prosecution's special investigation team insisted on filing an immediate appeal, delaying the final decision until the afternoon. The special investigation team argued that the court's calculation of the non-inclusion period of detention should be counted in 'hours' rather than 'days,' and therefore, the prosecution's indictment was made after the expiration of the detention period, a judgment they found unacceptable. They claimed this was a unique and unprecedented decision that clearly violated the Criminal Procedure Act and contradicted decades of firmly established court precedents and practical rulings.
Immediately after sending the 'release directive,' the Supreme Prosecutors' Office issued a statement explaining, "The Prosecutor General respected the court's decision to cancel detention and directed the special investigation team to release President Yoon Seok-yeol." They also announced that they decided not to file an immediate appeal. The Supreme Prosecutors' Office explained, "The existing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, which suspend execution until the confirmation of immediate appeal trials related to personal detention such as bail decisions or suspension of detention execution, effectively prioritize the prosecutor's objection over the court's judgment, potentially rendering the court's decision meaningless." They added, "Considering the Constitutional Court's ruling that deemed this unconstitutional and invalid, as well as the warrant principle established by the Constitution, we decided not to file an immediate appeal."
They also addressed the special investigation team's claims regarding the immediate appeal. The Supreme Prosecutors' Office stated, "There was an opinion from the special investigation team that the court's judgment on the calculation of the detention period was an unfair decision that did not conform to current legal provisions or the long-established practices formed by courts and prosecution, and thus should be corrected through an immediate appeal." They added, "Regarding this, considering the aforementioned Constitutional Court decision, we instructed to actively present opinions to the main trial court and respond accordingly."
Furthermore, it was reported that the Prosecutor General urged the special investigation team leader to maintain unwavering efforts to uphold the prosecution, given the national significance of this case.
Regarding the decision to cancel President Yoon's detention, legal circles inside and outside have pointed out that excessive competition among investigative agencies such as POGO, prosecution, and police caused procedural flaws. Although the investigation authority for the charge of rebellion lies with the police, POGO launched a joint investigation headquarters to accelerate the arrest and investigation of President Yoon. POGO arrested President Yoon on January 15 after two attempts and requested an arrest warrant on January 17. The warrant was issued on January 19.
Subsequently, the prosecution, which holds the authority to indict, received the case from POGO on January 23 and applied to the court for an extension of the detention period citing the need for additional investigation, but the court dismissed the request due to the absence of supplementary investigation provisions.
After various twists and turns, the prosecution held a nationwide prosecutors' meeting on January 26 and indicted President Yoon only at 6:52 p.m. Based on the court's calculation method for canceling detention, the indictment was made 9 hours and 45 minutes after the detention period expired. The court also stated that even if there were no issues with the timing of the prosecution's indictment, due to the lack of clear laws or precedents regarding POGO's investigation authority over the charge of rebellion, the detention should be canceled, the defendant released, and the trial conducted thereafter.
Meanwhile, POGO also expressed regret over the prosecution's conclusion to issue the 'release directive' for President Yoon on the same day. POGO stated, "As the investigative agency responsible for the arrest and detention, we express regret that we were unable to receive a judgment from a higher court regarding the calculation of the detention period and related issues."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
