By Hyunhee Shin
SEOUL (Reuters) – Investigators in South Korea arrested ousted President Yoon Suk-yul on Wednesday on charges of rebellion over his attempt to impose martial law after weeks of defiance and claims by Yoon and his lawyer that the arrest warrant was invalid.
Here's what we know about his arrest so far:
Why was Yoon arrested?
Yoon's arrest comes after he briefly imposed martial law on December 3, surprising South Koreans when he announced on national television his goal of rooting out “anti-state forces” and overcoming political deadlock.
But about six hours later, he abandoned the plan after parliament workers used barricades and fire extinguishers to fend off soldiers trying to prevent lawmakers from voting to reject Yoon's declaration.
Parliament voted to impeach Yoon on December 14, and a trial is now underway before the Constitutional Court to determine his political future, but investigators have also launched a criminal investigation into allegations of rebellion.
This is one of the few criminal charges from which the South Korean president is not immune, and when Yoon ignored the summons for questioning, the court approved an arrest warrant on December 31, which was later extended.
The Presidential Guard thwarted a first attempt to arrest him at his villa in the hills before he was detained on Wednesday.
Who are the investigators?
The Senior Officials Corruption Investigation Office (CIO) is leading the joint investigation team involving the police and the Ministry of Defence, while prosecutors are also conducting their own investigations.
The CIO was launched in 2021 as an independent anti-graft agency to investigate senior officials, including the president and their family members.
But its rights to investigation and prosecution are limited. It does not have the authority to prosecute the president, and must refer the case to the prosecution for any action, including indictment, once the interrogation is over.
Investigators now have 48 hours to question Yoon, before obtaining an arrest warrant for up to 20 days or releasing him.
What is Yoon's argument?
Yoon said on Wednesday that he submitted himself for questioning to avoid bloodshed, despite what he described as the illegality of the investigation and arrest.
Yoon's lawyers said that unlike prosecutors, the CIO had no authority to handle his case because the law stipulated an extensive list of high-level officials and violations he could investigate, but did not mention the insurrection.
The lawyers also said the arrest warrant was unconstitutional because it was issued by a court in the wrong jurisdiction.
They said any criminal investigation should take place after the Constitutional Court holds an impeachment trial and decides whether to remove him from office permanently.
Yoon's team has filed a complaint and injunction with the Constitutional Court to review the legality of the arrest warrant.
What is the position of Chief of Information and Police Department?
The IT director said he obtained the rights to take over Yoon's case by obtaining the arrest warrant, but apologized for previously failing to arrest Yoon and asked police to take over the execution of the arrest warrant.
Before Yoon's arrest, police acknowledged there was a legal dispute over the case but held multiple meetings with the IT director to discuss how to execute the arrest warrant after obtaining an arrest warrant that was reissued on January 7.
Seok Dong-hyun, Leon's legal counsel, said the attempt to transfer the implementation of the arrest warrant to the police was actually an admission by the CIO that the investigation and warrant were “illegal.”
What do the courts say?
The Constitutional Court said on Monday it was reviewing the complaint and injunction filed by Yoon's lawyer.
The Seoul Western District Court, which previously dismissed a similar complaint, said it was not illegal for the IT director to handle Yoon's case because the insurrection allegations are included in the abuse of power charges covered by the agency.
Yoon's lawyers criticized the court's statement as “sophistry” and said they would consider appealing the decision to a higher court.
