South Korea’s Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) issued an order on Jan. 21 prohibiting detained President Yoon Suk-yeol from sending or receiving letters following a ban on meeting visitors other than his lawyers.
The CIO cited the “potential risk of destroying evidence” for imposing such restrictions, but many legal experts have criticized these measures as excessive, arguing they violate the president’s fundamental human rights and undermine his right to defense. Many see the measures as retaliation for Yoon’s refusal to comply with previous summonses. The CIO made a second attempt to forcibly bring in Yoon for questioning on Jan. 21, the day he attended his impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court.
After attending the third hearing of his impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court, Yoon went to the Armed Forces Seoul District Hospital for medical treatment. However, unaware of Yoon’s whereabouts, the CIO sent six prosecutors and investigators to the Seoul Detention Center at around 5:00 p.m. to conduct a forced interrogation or door-to-door investigation. But Yoon had already left for the hospital at 4:43 p.m. in a Ministry of Justice convoy.
The detention center chief authorized Yoon’s hospital visit based on advice from the facility’s medical officer. “The doctor had recommended treatment for around a month, to the point that delaying it further was no longer an option,” Yoon’s legal team explained. Yoon returned to the detention center at 9:10 p.m., and the CIO left empty-handed at 9:47 p.m.
During a briefing, an official from the CIO said that the decision to ban Yoon from sending and receiving letters was made at around 3:00 p.m. on Jan. 20 to prevent the potential destruction of evidence. The restrictions on correspondence and meetings with visitors other than his lawyers will remain in effect until Yoon is formally indicted.
Critics argue the measures are unprecedented and discriminatory. Former Presidents Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak were allowed to exchange letters and meet visitors other than their lawyers when they were detained. Park was only prohibited from corresponding with her co-defendant, Choi Seo-won (formerly Choi Soon-sil). Former lawmaker Lee Seok-ki, arrested in 2013 on charges of plotting an insurrection, faced similar restrictions, but he was permitted visits from immediate family.
“Imposing both measures on President Yoon is excessive and paints him as a shameless criminal who would use family members to destroy evidence,” said a lawyer. Yoon’s attorney, Yoon Gap-keun, described the correspondence ban as “an anti-human rights act, imposed without clear evidence of any risk of evidence destruction.”
CIO Chief Oh Dong-woon said on Jan. 1 that the law would be enforced strictly yet with civility. However, recent events have cast doubt on the civility of the process. The executions of the first and second arrest warrants, carried out on Jan. 3 and Jan. 15 at the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Yongsan District, were broadcast live, and appeared more forceful and theatrical than respectful.
Yoon’s attorney visited the CIO on Jan. 8 to file a notice of appearance and requested a meeting with the investigative team, but the CIO rejected the request. Yoon’s legal team later said he would comply with court proceedings if charges were filed or a preliminary arrest warrant was requested, but the CIO maintained its stance, saying, “The policy to execute the arrest warrant remains unchanged.”
Critics say the CIO appeared fixated on arresting Yoon by deploying large police forces for the operations. Some criticized that the CIO only appeared fixated on arresting Yoon by deploying a large police force for the operation. The CIO opted for a similar approach on Jan. 20 when it attempted to forcibly bring in Yoon for questioning. “The CIO seems less concerned about conducting an investigation and more focused on publicly humiliating the president,” a former deputy prosecutor remarked.
