SEOUL - President Yoon Suk Yeol has been released after 52 days in detention, as the prosecution waived its right to appeal a court’s decision to revoke his detention on March 8.
Mr Yoon was detained on Jan 15 and formally indicted on Jan 26 on insurrection charges following his short-lived imposition of martial law on Dec 3, 2024.
Despite his release from the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province, and return to his residence in Hannam-dong on the night of March 7, he remains under legal scrutiny as he remains indicted on the charges and awaits a criminal trial.
Mr Yoon also awaits a ruling from the Constitutional Court on whether to uphold an impeachment motion against him that was passed in December.
Mr Yoon was freed from jail at a politically sensitive moment, with the Constitutional Court widely expected to deliver its impeachment verdict as early as next week.
The Seoul Central District Court on March 7 announced that it had approved Mr Yoon’s request for a revocation of his detention.
However, Mr Yoon was not released immediately. Prosecutors, who filed the charges, have seven days to appeal a court decision under Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The court explained that the indictment of President Yoon came after his detention period ended, clarifying that the duration should be computed in real hours, not calendar days, as prosecutors had argued.
The court added that, although it was reasonable to exclude the time spent on considering Mr Yoon’s appeal against his arrest from the total detention period, this should be calculated narrowly, and in terms of actual time spent, rather than by the calendar day.
Mr Yoon was arrested on Jan 15 at 10.33am, and his arrest was originally set to lapse at midnight on Jan 24.
The court, however, received the investigation records for scrutiny on Jan 17 at 5.46pm and returned them to investigators after issuing the warrant of detention on Jan19 at 2.53am.
The process took about 33 hours and seven minutes.
As a result of this delay, the time of detention was extended, going up to Jan 26 at 9.07am. But the indictment was filed later in the day at 6.52pm, after the period of prolonged detention.
“It is reasonable to determine the detention period based on hours spent on other legal procedures, rather than calendar days.
Unfair situations might occur where the extension of the detention period could be more than the actual time spent,” the court explained in its official document on March 7.
“With the development of technology, it is possible to accurately verify the time when the documents are submitted or returned. The investigative agencies will not find it difficult to manage the schedules to conduct an investigation of the detained suspect.”
The court also explained that there were valid grounds for canceling the detention even if the indictment was filed before the expiration of the custody period.
The court pointed out that the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials or CIO and prosecution are independent and distinct investigative organs.
The court said prosecutors of the CIO and prosecution “illegally divided the detention period without any legal grounds”, adding the CIO and prosecution also “failed to follow the procedure for custody transfer as mandated while transferring the custody of the defendant from one organisation to another”.
The CIO transferred Mr Yoon’s case to the prosecution on Jan 23, as the prosecution holds the authority to indict the president.
The CIO rejected the court’s interpretation that the indictment occurred after the detention period had expired, maintaining that Mr Yoon’s detention complied with legal procedures.
After Mr Yoon was arrested and taken into custody by the CIO on Jan 15, the agency claimed that the initial 10-day detention period was extended to Jan 27 saying the time spent on reviewing Mr Yoon’s request concerning the legality of his detention on Jan 16 and a hearing prior to Mr Yoon’s formal arrest on Jan 18.
The agency also argued that the detention period extension needs to be calculated by the date, allowing the prosecutors to hold up Mr Yoon for up to three more days.
The court’s decision on Mr Yoon’s detention has stirred controversy, but it is widely seen as adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal justice that favors the defendant or suspect where there is a doubt in law.
The court strictly interpreted the law, adhering to the text of the statute as disputes over the detention period persisted. Also individual liberty is guaranteed by the South Korean Constitution, while the Criminal Procedure Act guarantees that investigations are carried on without excessive detention.
In a pretrial hearing for a criminal trial on insurrection charges on Feb 20, Mr Yoon denied the accusations against him and argued that his detention was unlawful.
In the hearing on Mr Yoon’s request for a revocation of his detention, the president’s legal representatives argued that the grounds for detention no longer exist, claiming Mr Yoon should have been released beforehand. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Thanks for sharing!