The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) has announced plans to execute the arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk-yeol, who is facing charges of instigating rebellion and abuse of authority, before its expiration on the 6th. On the 2nd, police officers were seen on guard duty in front of the presidential residence’s main gate in Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.
President Yoon’s legal team argued that it’s illegal for the CIO, which does not have the authority to direct police investigations, to receive support from police task forces. In a statement, the legal team said that if task forces were to execute the warrant on behalf of the CIO, they could be arrested by the Presidential Security Service or any citizen.
The legal team explained that CIO investigators are granted the status and authority of judicial police under the CIO Act. Therefore, for the police task force to execute warrants, the prosecutorial authority over police investigations that formerly lay with the prosecution must reside with CIO prosecutors.
They emphasized that the CIO Act does not provide comprehensive investigatory command over police forces for the CIO. The attempt to arrest and search President Yoon with police task force support is deemed a legally unfounded act.
Furthermore, they claimed it’s illegal for police task forces, whose role is to maintain public order and conduct policing activities, to undertake forced investigatory actions under the command of another investigative body.
The legal team believes task forces may engage in “crowd control activities to prevent physical clashes” in response to collaboration requests under the CIO law, but acting beyond that to execute warrants is beyond their duties. Assisting in investigations is outside the jurisdiction of task forces.
They added that arrest and search warrants must be executed directly by CIO prosecutors and investigators, and any such actions by police task forces violate the constitutional principle of warrant-based actions as well as the Criminal Procedure Act and the CIO Act.
Moreover, the team warned that if task forces undertake arrest and search warrant execution on behalf of the CIO, they could be caught in flagrante delicto for abuse of authority and obstruction of the execution of official duties by the Presidential Security Service or citizens.
The CIO mentioned that it has not yet confirmed whether police task force support would be sought during the execution of warrants.
Meanwhile, the CIO appears to be pressuring the Presidential Security Service for their support in executing a search warrant, issued alongside an arrest warrant, which includes a clause exempting the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act. These articles prevent the seizure and search of locations requiring military secrecy or items related to official secrets without consent.
Additionally, the CIO has taken preemptive measures by sending a warning notice to the Presidential Security Service that obstruction of warrant execution could result in charges of dereliction of duty or obstruction of official duties.
CIO Chief Odong Oon further warned that locking doors and refusing to comply with the execution of an arrest warrant constitutes obstruction of official duties.