The Special Prosecution Targets the Top from the Outset...
A Bold Move or an Overreach?
Highlighting 'Risk of Evidence Destruction'...
Could This Become a Pressure Tactic Against Key Suspects?
Former President Yoon Sukyeol is appearing at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, where the special prosecution team led by Special Prosecutor Cho Eunseok is based, on the 5th to undergo the second investigation by the special prosecution team for the internal rebellion case. Photo by Yonhap News
On the afternoon of the 6th, just 18 days after launching its investigation into the 12·3 Martial Law Incident, the special prosecution team led by Special Prosecutor Cho Eunseok requested an arrest warrant for former President Yoon Sukyeol. This action followed two rounds of summons and questioning of the former president. Considering that the special prosecution team is allowed a maximum investigation period of 150 days, this is an unusually rapid move. This can be interpreted as an attempt to secure the custody of former President Yoon, who is considered the ultimate person responsible for the rebellion, at an early stage in order to prevent suspects from coordinating their statements or attempting to destroy evidence.
The charges brought against former President Yoon by the special prosecution team include obstruction of official duties by special means, violation of the Presidential Security Act, abuse of authority, and falsification of official documents. In the 66-page arrest warrant application, the special prosecution team stated that former President Yoon instructed former Deputy Chief of the Presidential Security Service Kim Sunghoon to block the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), and ordered the deletion of information from a secure phone (used for secret conversations). The team also charged him with abuse of authority for allegedly instructing the overseas secretary and foreign press spokesperson to explain false information in support of martial law to foreign journalists.
The special prosecution team maintains that, during the process of convening the Cabinet before the declaration of martial law, former President Yoon intentionally summoned only some Cabinet members, thereby obstructing the remaining members from exercising their deliberative and decision-making rights. Regarding the drafting and destruction of the post-factum martial law declaration, the team wrote that former President Yoon received the post-dated martial law declaration, which included the signatures of former Prime Minister Han Ducksoo and former Defense Minister Kim Yonghyun, from former Presidential Secretary Kang Uigu, signed it himself, and had it stored in his office. After receiving a report from Kang that former Prime Minister Han had said, "Let's pretend the signature never happened," Yoon approved the destruction by saying, "If that's what the Prime Minister wants, do it that way."
In response, former President Yoon's legal team stated, "We fully explained the facts related to the charges during the investigation and made it clear that, as a matter of law, no crime was committed," adding, "No objective evidence was presented during the special prosecution’s investigation, and even according to the statements of those involved, no crime can be established." Yoon's side also said, "We will demonstrate in court that the special prosecution’s request for an arrest warrant is excessive."
Previously, the special prosecution team had requested an arrest warrant for former President Yoon on similar charges, but the court rejected it. At that time, the reason for rejection was that "former President Yoon has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation."
The fact that the special prosecution team is moving to secure custody of former President Yoon at this early stage?what could be called the first half of the investigation?also hints at the direction of the investigation going forward. Since the main charges of rebellion have already been investigated and prosecuted by the regular prosecution, the special prosecution team must focus on aspects that the prosecution has not addressed. In the current situation, where disputes continue over whether to summon and question former President Yoon, it will be difficult for the special prosecution to proceed swiftly.
Legal experts also note that, since the investigation of other suspects is likely to be linked to the investigation of former President Yoon, the special prosecution team had little choice but to take strong measures from the outset.
Of course, whether the court will issue an arrest warrant for former President Yoon is a separate matter. Ultimately, the decision will depend on whether the facts presented and the legal basis applied by the special prosecution team are accurate. The key issue is whether the charges are substantiated to the extent that an arrest is justified. If this requirement is met, the court will then consider the risk of flight or evidence destruction, but it is generally accepted that there is no risk of flight.
Accordingly, the special prosecution team is expected to emphasize the risk of evidence destruction during the warrant review process. They argue that, since there are many key suspects who have not yet been questioned, and if former President Yoon is not taken into custody, there is a high likelihood that he could coordinate statements with them through his legal counsel or other means.
On the other hand, former President Yoon's side is expected to actively argue not only that the charges have not been substantiated, but also that if he is detained, it would hinder his ability to defend himself not only in the special prosecution's rebellion investigation, but also in the already indicted rebellion trial, the Kim Keonhee special prosecution, and the Chae Sangbyung special prosecution investigations.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
