Request for Arrest Warrant for Yoon Seok-yeol, Judicial Justice of the Special Investigation into Insurrection

Background of the arrest warrant request for Yoon Seok-yeol

On June 24, 2025, the Special Prosecutor's Team led by Cho Eun-seok filed an arrest warrant against former President Yoon Suk-yeol with the Seoul Central District Court. This action came just 12 days after the investigation into charges related to insurrection and foreign exchange began. The backdrop for such a swift decision appears to involve a combination of repeated non-compliance with summons, indications of evasion of arrest, and concerns about destruction of evidence. However, the significance of this matter goes beyond the legitimacy of investigative techniques it serves as a litmus test for whether the judicial system of South Korea can operate without exception even against those in power.

The flow remains the same even if the investigative subject is different.

Internal rebellion and foreign exchange crimes are classified as serious offenses that undermine the foundation of a nation's existence. Accordingly, the police emergency martial law special investigation team identified former President Yoon as a suspect and notified him of summons three times on June 5, 12, and 19, but there was no response each time. Meanwhile, on June 12, special prosecutor Cho Eun-seok was appointed, and the investigative authority was transferred to the special prosecutor, who also attempted a summons but was met with noncompliance. The special prosecutor stated that this is 'merely a change in the investigative entity, but still a continuous investigation into the same case.' In fact, Article 200-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act specifies that if a suspect refuses to respond to a summons request three or more times without a legitimate reason, a warrant for arrest can be requested. When combining the number of summons requests from both the police and the special prosecutor, this requirement is met. The special prosecutor's emphasis on the continuity of the investigation is based on a legal framework aimed at securing procedural legitimacy.

Silence of the Powerful and Legal Procedures

Repeatedly failing to respond to the investigative authorities' requests for attendance holds significant implications in criminal procedures. In particular, former President Yoon has maintained silence without any official explanation, and there has not even been an attempt to adjust schedules through his lawyer. The special prosecutor stated, 'While other related suspects have diligently cooperated with the investigation, former President Yoon is the only one who has refused to show up.' Such behavior can be interpreted as a disregard for legal procedures and serves to reaffirm that a former president is not above the law. Attendance is not merely an issue of cooperation it is a fundamental premise for exercising the right to defense. Nonetheless, if this repeated refusal continues, enforced investigations to ensure the effectiveness of the inquiry will become a legally unavoidable choice. Equality before the law is a principle that should be demanded even more strictly from high-ranking officials.

The seriousness of obstructing arrest and destroying evidence

This warrant application is not only about refusal to appear but also includes specific acts of obstruction and concerns about the destruction of evidence. The special prosecutor is applying charges of 'obstruction of special public duties,' 'abuse of power,' and 'abuse of authority under the Presidential Security Act' against former President Yoon, citing attempts to obstruct arrest using the security office and instructions to delete materials related to the so-called 'private phone' as major evidence. The security office is a national agency for the protection of the president's personal safety, and this authority should be limited to public interest purposes. However, circumstances indicating an attempt to use it as a means to evade personal judicial risks can be perceived as privatization of public power. In particular, the instruction to delete digital materials, which raises concerns about the destruction of evidence, can only be regarded as a serious act that may obscure the essence of the investigation.

Legal Procedures and Political Context of Arrest Warrants

A warrant of arrest is not merely a tool for securing the suspect's physical custody. It is a litmus test that shows how the law treats power and serves as a benchmark for determining whether judicial justice can be realized in reality rather than remaining an abstract concept. The request for an arrest warrant against a high-ranking public official places a significant burden on both the investigative agency and the court. Therefore, the mere fact that this warrant request was made serves as evidence that sufficient legal requirements and circumstances were met. The special prosecutor's office explained, 'We considered the continuity of the case, the suspect's consistent noncompliance, and the possibility of evidence destruction.' This reflects a careful consideration of the balance between procedural justice and substantive justice, suggesting that the enforcement of the law was not a mere choice but an inevitable consequence.

Equality before the law, the possibility of execution

"All citizens are equal before the law." This phrase from Article 11 of the Constitution has long been a central principle of democracy in South Korea. However, for this statement to hold true in practice, institutions and agencies must possess the courage and capability to implement it. History has often recorded instances where this statement has been suspended or distorted in the face of certain powers. The current case is not merely about the arrest of an individual it is also a process that tests how far the rule of law in South Korea has come. The arrest warrant originated from the decision of the investigative agency, but now the court's judgment will ultimately determine the outcome. Equality before the law is not just a simple norm it is a task that requires practical implementation. And we are now at a moment where we are watching whether that implementation is possible.