A South Korean court has approved an arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was impeached over his short-lived martial law declaration on Dec. 3. Yoon’s legal representatives immediately protested the arrest warrant issued by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) on Dec. 31, calling it “illegal and invalid.”
“The arrest warrant has been issued by an agency without investigative authority,” said Yoon Kab-keun, one of President Yoon’s lawyers. He argued that the arrest warrant does not meet the Criminal Procedure Act requirements as the CIO lacks the authority to investigate insurrection charges.
The CIO claims that it can investigate insurrection as a crime linked to abuse of power, which falls under its direct investigative authority. Yoon’s legal representatives refuted this, asserting that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for abuse of power and tying insurrection to abuse of power is a legal overreach.
The dispute reflects the ongoing power struggle between prosecutors, police, and the CIO over investigative authority. The Supreme Court’s National Court Administration noted, “Ultimately, the matter must be decided by the court, depending on the specifics of the warrant request.”
By law, the CIO does not have investigative jurisdiction over insurrection. Only the police have the authority to investigate rebellion or insurrection directly. However, the CIO argues it can investigate insurrection as a crime related to abuse of power, a precedent previously cited by prosecutors before transferring the case to the CIO.
Despite this argument, legal experts warn that courts may adopt a narrow interpretation of a sitting president’s liability. “Unlike figures such as former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, President Yoon is immune from prosecution for most crimes except in cases involving insurrection and treason,” said a lawyer based in Seocho-dong. “The court might interpret the scope of ‘related crimes’ more narrowly in Yoon’s case.”
“Attempting to connect insurrection, a serious offense punishable by the death penalty, with abuse of power, which carries a maximum five-year sentence, stretches legal reasoning,” said Yoon’s lawyer.
Previously, the CIO issued an arrest warrant for former intelligence commander Moon Sang-ho, who was also charged with insurrection and abuse of power. Prosecutors similarly indicted former Defense Minister Kim on insurrection charges as a related crime of abuse of power. A CIO official remarked, “The court has already acknowledged the CIO’s authority to investigate cases involving insurrection.”
If the court issues an arrest warrant for Yoon, the CIO can execute it immediately. However, many legal experts predict the CIO might attempt further summons instead, as the issuance of a warrant exerts significant psychological pressure.
CIO Chief Oh Dong-woon previously warned that if the Presidential Security Service stands in the way of the warrant’s execution, the CIO will issue an official letter stating that this could constitute obstruction of public duty and abuse of power. But experts agree the CIO will likely refrain from physical confrontation even if the Presidential Security Service stands in the way.
In 2004, prosecutors issued an arrest warrant against former Democratic Party leader Han Hwa-gap but abandoned efforts to arrest after 200 supporters blocked the party headquarters.
“If President Yoon continues to defy the arrest warrant, the CIO may simply transfer the case to prosecutors without further investigation,” said a lawyer familiar with the matter.
Under law, the CIO can investigate and prosecute corruption offenses involving high-ranking officials, including judges, prosecutors, and senior police officers at the rank of commissioner or higher. However, for other high-ranking officials, including the president, the CIO only has investigative power, not the authority to prosecute.
Even if the CIO investigates, arrests, or detains President Yoon, only prosecutors can bring him to trial. The CIO Act also lacks provisions for a maximum detention period, defaulting to the prosecution’s standard 20-day limit. Ultimately, the CIO will likely transfer the case to the prosecution after completing the investigation with a recommendation for indictment.
