Special Prosecutor: "Disclosure of Charges Is Obstruction of Investigation"... Battle of Wits with Yoon's Defense Team
Special Prosecutor to Actively Use "Obstruction of Investigation and Destruction of Evidence" Allegations in Warrant Review
Former President Yoon Seokyeol is appearing at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, where the Special Prosecutor Jo Eunseok's team office is located, on the 5th to undergo the second investigation by the Special Prosecutor for the Insurrection Case. Photo by Yonhap News
With the substantive warrant review for former President Yoon Seokyeol just one day away, a fierce battle of wits continues between Special Prosecutor Jo Eunseok's team and Yoon's legal defense team.
The special prosecutor's team has publicly criticized Yoon's side, accusing them of deliberately obstructing the investigation by disclosing details of the charges. The team took issue with the fact that the arrest warrant request for Yoon, which was filed by the special prosecutor, was leaked to the media and reported in detail. Typically, suspects raise concerns about disclosure of charges as a violation of human rights or their right to defense by investigative agencies, but in this case, the situation is reversed.
At a briefing on the 7th, Deputy Special Prosecutor Park Jiyoung stated, "We have identified which of Yoon's defense attorneys leaked the warrant to the media," adding, "We need to determine the process and circumstances of how it was leaked, and through concrete fact-finding, the individual can be booked." This implies that, depending on the outcome, the attorney in question could be booked as a criminal suspect. The special prosecutor's team maintains that if the facts are confirmed, this would constitute a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act or a breach of professional secrecy under the Criminal Act.
This unusual situation has arisen because whether or not Yoon's arrest warrant is issued could determine the pace and outcome of the early stages of the investigation. The arrest warrant for Yoon contains detailed statements from Yoon and other key suspects.
This means that much of the investigative content compiled so far by the special prosecutor's team is included. As a result, suspects or their attorneys may be able to gain insight into the special prosecutor's strategy. If they are aware of the warrant's contents or related statements before being investigated, they will have much more room to prepare, compared to facing the investigation without such information. The special prosecutor's team regards this situation as de facto "obstruction of the investigation" and an "attempt to coordinate testimonies."
There is another underlying motive behind the special prosecutor's actions. The team aims to persuade the court, which will decide on Yoon's detention, that "such attempts to destroy evidence have been made by Yoon's side, so a custodial investigation is necessary." It is a strategy to impress upon the judge the "grounds for detention."
In the arrest warrant for Yoon, the special prosecutor's team wrote, "Given that the suspect's criminal instructions were carried out covertly, testimonial evidence holds much higher probative value than in other cases," and, "The suspect is an expert in criminal justice and is therefore well aware of these facts, making it highly likely that he will contact those involved in the case and induce them to give statements favorable to him."
The special prosecutor's team believes that the defense's leaking of the warrant served as a guideline for statements to those involved in the insurrection case and related incidents. A member of the special prosecutor's team stated, "The Special Prosecutor Act contains provisions allowing for the punishment of those who obstruct the duties of the special prosecutor," and added, "When details of the charges are disclosed, those involved in the case may become significantly intimidated, and this can affect their statements."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
