Yoon Seok-yeol's arrest warrant dismissed, Cho Eun-seok's meticulous strategy for the special investigation on rebellion

Introduction: The Surface and Depth of the Case of Dismissal of Arrest Warrant

On June 25, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the arrest warrant against former President Yoon Suk-yeol. This warrant was requested by Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok's team on charges of insurrection and foreign exchange crimes, with the former president being the central suspect in this matter. The court stated, "Since he has expressed his willingness to appear, there is no reason for detention," leading to divergent interpretations from the political arena and the media. Some criticized it as a failure of investigation or undue pressure. However, upon closer examination of this case, it becomes clear that it is part of a meticulously designed investigative strategy, rather than just a simple judicial ruling. The investigation by Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok went beyond a single arrest warrant and was a step in building the overall investigative framework.

The appearance of Special Prosecutor Jo Eun-seok and the development of the investigation

Special Prosecutor Jo Eun-seok has been appointed to lead the special investigation team for an unprecedentedly serious issue in constitutional history, involving conspiracy to commit insurrection and foreign exchange crimes. Having served as Deputy Minister of Justice and Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office, he is recognized as an expert in both investigative practice and organizational management. Immediately after its launch, the special prosecution team organized a large-scale investigation team of 267 members, which is an unprecedented size for a special prosecution investigation, clearly indicating the gravity of the issue and the determination to investigate. The investigation began with the acquisition of vast amounts of material and inquiries of staff members, quickly focusing on former President Yoon. After three requests for summons were ignored by former President Yoon, the special prosecutor had no choice but to seek an arrest warrant, which was not only aimed at securing his physical presence but also strategically intended to establish the legitimacy of the investigation and public support.

The meaning of requesting an arrest warrant: process rather than purpose

The arrest warrant is a means to secure the custody of a suspect in criminal proceedings, but this request had purposes beyond that. The core of this request was to document former President Yoon's failure to respond to a summons and to present the legitimacy of the investigation, which is a 'building of procedural justification.' As a result, the arrest warrant was dismissed, but the special investigator succeeded in publicizing former President Yoon's uncooperative stance. Notably, the fact that the court cited 'expression of intent to attend' as a reason for dismissal could turn into a strong reason for detention if former President Yoon ultimately does not appear. In other words, the arrest warrant is not a failed objective but is serving as a strategic leverage for future responses.

The essence is 'arrest and prosecution'... attendance is a strategy for legitimacy.

The ultimate goal of special prosecutor Jo Eun-seok is not simply attendance. Attendance is a formal procedure that meets the requirements of due process while also serving as a prerequisite to secure the legitimacy of a future arrest warrant. The substantive aim is the arrest and indictment of former President Yoon, which is part of the process of holding him accountable for serious criminal allegations under the constitution. The special prosecutor has already secured procedural legitimacy multiple times. Requests for attendance and applications for arrest warrants all serve as a foundation to demonstrate 'sufficient prior procedural compliance' when seeking an arrest warrant in the future. In particular, the fact that he 'expressed the willingness to attend but still failed to comply' serves as a strong argument to establish the necessity and significance of his arrest.

Analysis of the Special Prosecutor's Build-Up Strategy

The special prosecutor Cho Eun-seok does not view the investigation merely as simple law enforcement, but approaches it with a phased and systematic strategy. He has stated that he will adopt an attitude of 'writing historical records,' which reveals a philosophy of investigation based on documentation and logic rather than emotions. His method strictly follows procedures, employing a straightforward approach free from excess or leaps in logic. This series of actions, which progresses from non-compliance with summons, to warrant requests, to re-notification for attendance after rejection, not only maintains the axis of the investigation steadily but also strategically accumulates legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion and the court's judgment. At the same time, media responses are being carried out cautiously, serving to maintain public interest.

Outlook: Attendance on June 28 will be a turning point.

The special prosecutor's office has notified former President Yoon to appear by 9 a.m. on June 28. This day will be a turning point in the investigation. When he appears, formal statements will be taken, and confrontational investigations will be conducted, allowing for the collection of substantive evidence for prosecution. On the other hand, if he does not appear, there is a high likelihood that a warrant for his immediate arrest will be requested again, and this dismissal decision may serve to reinforce the grounds for detention. In other words, the dismissal of the arrest warrant was not a setback for the investigation but rather a kind of 'legitimacy assurance procedure' to transition to the next stage. Through this process, the special prosecutor's office emphasizes procedural legitimacy over coercive power, firmly maintaining the initiative in the investigation.

Conclusion: Rejection is not failure it's part of the strategy.

At first glance, the dismissal of the arrest warrant may seem like a failure of the investigation. However, Special Prosecutor Jo Eun-seok's investigation is situated within a strategic flow that goes beyond mere physical detention, accumulating legitimacy and procedural legitimacy. The arrest warrant is a scene in that strategy and serves as a design for the next step rather than a failure. The special prosecutor is using public trust and procedure as their weapons, rather than excessive coercive power. The stages of urging attendance, reapplying for the warrant, detention, and indictment are gradually turning feasibility into reality. This case is not just about a former president it is a moment that tests the essence of judicial justice and constitutional order. The future choices of former President Yoon and the direction of the special prosecutor's investigation will be an important crossroads questioning where our society stands. What is justice and what is responsibility? The special prosecutor's investigation is inching closer to answering that question.