(Seoul=News1) Reporter Min Kyung-seok: On the morning of the 31st, Yoon Gap-geun, the legal representative of President Yoon Seok-yeol, stated the position regarding the court’s issuance of an arrest warrant for President Yoon in front of the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. 2024.12.31/News1
As the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Agency (CIO) initiated the execution of an arrest warrant for President Yoon Seok-yeol on the 3rd, President Yoon’s side declared that “the warrant is unconstitutional and illegal, and its execution would be unlawful.”
In a statement delivered to the press, President Yoon’s legal representatives said, “The CIO’s application for a warrant without having the jurisdiction to investigate charges of insurrection is illegal, and the issuance of the warrant is an unconstitutional and illegal act, rendering its execution invalid.”
The representatives stated, “If the CIO attempted to execute an unconstitutional and illegal warrant and the police cooperated, both the CIO and the police would be committing the crime of unlawful arrest under Article 124 of the Criminal Act. If any physical confrontation arises during the execution process, it would constitute official misconduct and obstruction of official duties.”
President Yoon faces charges of being the chief instigator in connection with the December 3 Martial Law Incident. The CIO had asked President Yoon to appear three times, and after his non-compliance, it requested an arrest warrant from the court, which was issued on the 31st of last month.
Regarding the warrant issued by the CIO, which states ‘exceptions to the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act,’ the representatives argued, “Only the Constitutional Court has the authority to suspend the effect of laws, and such matters fall within the legislative domain. Judge Lee Soon-hyung’s decision to exclude the application of laws through a warrant is not a suspension of effect. Nevertheless, the judge committed an unconstitutional act in clear violation of Article 40 of the Constitution by effectively ‘legislating’ through the warrant issuance.”
The representatives criticized the CIO’s application for an arrest warrant to the Seoul Western District Court rather than the Seoul Central District Court, stating, “The court is where Jeong Kye-seon, who was recommended as a Constitutional Court justice candidate by the Democratic Party, and Ma Eun-hyuk, a senior judge, are currently serving. Since both have backgrounds in the ‘Our Law Society’ (a progressive judges’ group), the public is pointing out this incident as ‘warrant shopping, judge shopping.'”
They further stated, “There is no precedent in global constitutional history where a president was punished for treason for exercising state emergency powers like martial law. Suggesting that the president is guilty of treason is just instigation by certain factions aimed at disrupting the national constitution.”
The legal representatives concluded, “The CIO executing an unconstitutionally issued warrant without jurisdiction over insurrection is clearly an unconstitutional act. If they mobilize the police riot squad for this, it constitutes a rebellion through the use of force with the intent to ‘exclude state power from the presidency’ and ‘disrupt the national constitution,’ thus meeting the clear criteria for insurrection.”