As part of their investigation into whether Yoon Suk Yeol’s brief but valiant fighting laws decree on December 3 constituted rebellion, South Korean law enforcement requested a court warrant on Monday.
The Seoul Western District Court’s Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials confirmed it requested the subpoena from the Seoul Western District Court. It is the co-chair of a joint research with police and military government into the strength seize that lasted only a few days. They intend to issue Yoon on suspicion of arranging a revolution and abuse of authority.
Yoon Kap-keun, the government’s lawyer, denounced the detention test and filed a problem with the same court, arguing that the subpoena request was irrelevant. He claimed that the anti-corruption company lacked the authority to look into allegations of revolution. However, he evaded answering how the legal team may react if the jury approved the permit for the government’s detainment.
The prosecutor argued that an incumbent president may be held accountable for abuse of power. ” Of course, there are different intellectual viewpoints on whether a president does face abuse of power, and some claim that such inquiries are possible. The general consensus is that studies should be carried out with the greatest caution, even when they are permitted, though.
The anti-corruption company didn’t immediately react to the judge’s comments.
The judge should be able to challenge the subpoena, according to Han Min-soo, the democratic opposition’s representative, claiming Yoon Suk Yeol’s detention would be the first step in the direction of “ending the revolution and restoring normalcy.”
Yoon evaded many requests from the combined analysis team and public prosecution to look for questioning, and he also halted searches of his offices.
Although Yoon enjoys the political privilege of criminal prosecution immunity, such protections do not apply to treason or rebellion claims.
Whether Yoon may be required to look for questioning or whether the court may grant the warrant remains to be seen.
Locations possibly linked to military strategies may be seized or searched without the people in charge’s consent, according to the country’s laws, and it’s unlikely that Yoon may voluntarily leave his place of residence if he is facing detention. If Yoon’s government security assistance is attempting to forcibly detain him, there are also concerns about potential conflicts with his.
Yoon’s national authority was revoked on December 14 after the National Assembly voted to remove him from office over his imposing of military law, which had only been in effect for a few hours but had sparked weeks of political unrest, slowed high-level diplomacy, and rattled financial markets.
The Constitutional Court has begun discussion regarding Yoon’s future, which will decide whether to officially remove him from office or restore him.
Prior to the judge’s review of Yoon’s circumstance, the National Assembly voted last week to remove Han Duck-soo, who had been in charge of acting as acting president after Yoon’s forces were suspended, from the bench. The country’s fresh time chief is Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok, who is also banking minister.
To fully close Yoon’s president, at least six judges on the nine-member Constitutional Court may vote in favor. A whole chair could make convictions more plausible because three seats are now vacant following retirements.
Choi, who has been handling the administration’s response to a plane crash on Sunday that killed 179 persons, has yet to say whether he intends to appoint the Constitutional Court judges.
Officials have now detained Yoon’s defence secretary, police chief, and several other military leaders in a separate criminal investigation into the attempt to impose the martial law order, which resembled the days of authoritarian rulers the nation hadn’t seen since the 1980s.
Following a 2021 transformation that redistributed investigative power among law enforcement agencies and removed revolt from the list of crimes that prosecutors and the anti-corruption business was prosecute, the police are theoretically the only ones with the authority to investigate revolution costs. However, those organizations are still conducting inquiries into allegations that Yoon was a victim of rebellion, which they claim were related to allegations of abuse of power.
Yoon and his military leaders have been accused of attempting to encircle the building by deploying hundreds of heavily armed troops to obstruct the National Assembly’s ability to vote to end martial law. Immediately following Yoon’s declaration in a late-night television address, the surviving legislators voted unanimously 190 to win the decision to lift martial law.
Yoon has also been accused of ordering defense counterintelligence to apprehend influential politicians, including former first lady Kim Keon Hee, first lady Lee Jae-myung, president of the nation Woo Won Shik, and former conservative party leader Han Dong-hun, a reformist who supported corruption investigations into allegations against first lady Lee.
Yoon has defended the martial law decree as a necessary act of government, describing it as a temporary warning against the liberal opposition Democratic Party, which he has described as an “anti-state” force obstructing his agenda with its majority in the National Assembly. Yoon has claimed that he had no intention of disrupting the assembly’s operation, that the troops were dispatched to maintain order, and that he had no intention of preventing political arrests.
The now-arrested commander of the Army Special Warfare Command, Kwak Jong-keun, who testified in the National Assembly that Yoon called for troops to “quickly destroy the door and drag out the lawmakers who are inside” the assembly’s main chamber where the vote took place, has refuted Yoon’s claims. Kwak said he did not carry out Yoon’s orders.
Major General Moon Sang-ho, the head of the Defense Intelligence Command, who has also been detained over suspicions that he sent troops to the National Election Commission in the city of Gwacheon after Yoon declared martial law, has also been questioned by the joint investigation team.
Yoon has defended the troop deployment to the electoral commission, which occurred at the same time as the military operation at the National Assembly, calling on it to look into alleged computer system vulnerabilities that might have had an impact on the legitimacy of election results.
Yoon’s failure to provide any proof to back up his claims has raised concerns that he was backing conspiracy theories spread through right-wing YouTube channels that claimed April’s parliamentary elections were rigged. Those elections were decided by the Democratic Party overwhelmingly. The election commission rejected Yoon’s allegations, stating there was no basis to suspect election fraud.
