Yoon Suk-yeol President Arrest Warrant Misleading Response Allegations
[Seong Seung-hyun, Edaily Reporter] The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) addressed allegations that they provided misleading responses to questions regarding an arrest warrant associated with President Yoon Suk-yeol, stating, “All suspicions have been resolved due to the prosecution’s search and seizure.”
The CIO remarked on the 4th during a meeting with reporters, discussing the so-called ‘warrant shopping allegations’ and mentioned the prosecution’s search and seizure on February 28. They stated, “The allegations are not true,” and added, “All relevant contents related to the indictment have been submitted to the prosecution.” The Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office Criminal Division 1 (led by Chief Prosecutor Kim Seung-ho) had previously conducted a search and seizure at the CIO office.
In response to this, a CIO spokesperson explained, “Naturally, we could not refuse to cooperate with the search and seizure.” Addressing claims from President Yoon’s side that the CIO did not provide investigation records, the spokesperson refuted, “There is no reason to demand records from us,” explaining, “The originals have already been handed over to the prosecution, and the court possesses them.”
There is an ongoing allegation that the CIO provided false answers to an inquiry from People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo. Representative Joo sent an inquiry to the CIO on January 12, asking if the office had applied for any search, seizure, or communication warrants related to President Yoon at the Central District Court, besides the arrest warrant.
The CIO responded, “We have not applied for a warrant against President Yoon at the Seoul Central District Court.” However, according to President Yoon’s legal team, before applying for an arrest warrant at the Seoul Western District Court, the CIO applied for a search and seizure warrant and a communication warrant against President Yoon as a suspect at the Seoul Central District Court on December 6 and 8.
President Yoon’s side accused the CIO of concealing the fact of the warrant application and filed a complaint against Oh Dong-woong, Director of CIO, among others, with the prosecution. However, the CIO expressed strong dissatisfaction with the allegations raised by President Yoon’s side.
Director Oh Dong-woong, attending the National Assembly’s ‘Investigation into the Alleged Insurrection Special Committee’ on the 25th of last month, commented on the ‘warrant shopping allegations’ stating, “The scope regulated by Article 31 of the CIO Act concerns cases where the CIO files an indictment.” Article 31 of the CIO Act stipulates that the first trial for cases where the CIO Prosecutor files an indictment is under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Court. Previously, the CIO had applied for an arrest warrant against President Yoon at the Seoul Western District Court, citing charges of being the ‘head of insurrection.’ While the crime of insurrection is within the investigative jurisdiction of the CIO, it does not have the power to prosecute.
Director Oh further explained, “Additionally, the latter part of Article 31 of the CIO Act allows for discretion concerning jurisdiction,” noting, “Since the crime of insurrection does not carry prosecution power, jurisdiction should be determined under the principles of the Criminal Procedure Act, not the CIO Act.” He emphasized, “(Regarding President Yoon’s residence, etc.), the Western District Court is more relevant,” adding, “If an arrest warrant had been applied to the Central District Court, the court would likely have contemplated much about whether jurisdiction was established.”
However, regarding the allegation of providing a false response to Representative Joo’s inquiry, he admitted, “This part resulted from a premature assumption by the staff (responding to the inquiry) as asking about the arrest warrant, leading to an incorrect response, and I acknowledge the mistake.”