The Seoul Central District Court announced Friday that it had approved President Yoon Suk Yeol's request for a revocation of his detention.
The decision came 51 days after Yoon was taken into custody in connection with the martial law declaration on Dec. 3 in 2024 and 40 days after his indictment for leading an insurrection.
The court’s decision comes amid growing expectations that the Constitutional Court will deliver its ruling next week on Yoon’s impeachment, which is under review in a separate case.
However, 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.
Yoon will only be released if the prosecution waives its right to appeal or fails to do so within the seven-day period.
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 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.
Yoon was arrested on Jan. 15 at 10:33 a.m., 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 5:46 p.m. and returned them to investigators after issuing the warrant of detention on Jan.19 at 2:53 a.m. The process took about 33 hours and 7 minutes.
As a result of this delay, the time of detention was extended, going up to Jan. 26 at 9:07 a.m. But the indictment was filed later in the day at 6:52 p.m., 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 Friday.
“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 organization to another."
The CIO transferred 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 Yoon’s detention complied with legal procedures.
After 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 Yoon’s request concerning the legality of his detention on Jan. 16 and a hearing prior to 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 Yoon for up to three more days.
The court’s decision on 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, Yoon denied the accusations against him and argued that his detention was unlawful.
In the hearing on Yoon's request for a revocation of his detention, the president's legal representatives argued that the grounds for detention no longer exist, claiming Yoon should have been released beforehand.
sj_lee@heraldcorp.com
