Analysis of the continued denial of warrants by the Seoul Central District Court

Introduction: Repeated Dismissals, Obstruction of Justice or Independent Judging

Recently, judges specializing in warrants at the Seoul Central District Court have been rejecting warrants in major political and economic investigations, leading to growing controversy over whether this reflects independent judicial judgment or if it acts as a judicial "buffer" favoring certain powers. Notably, in the special prosecutor's investigation targeting First Lady Kim Kun-hee and former President Yoon Suk-yeol, the continuous rejection of arrest and search warrants for suspects has raised suspicions based on circumstances that political considerations may have influenced the judges' decisions. A representative case is the rejection of a search warrant for Kim Ye-seong, who has been identified as a close aide to First Lady Kim. Some analysts suggest that the unusual public disclosure of warrant rejections during the briefings for the Kim Kun-hee special prosecution could indicate that more than one warrant was rejected. Considering that the usual warrant issuance rate exceeds 99%, such rejections are statistically unusual, making it challenging for the general public to comprehend without sufficient explanations from the court. Noteworthy is that three out of the four judges in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court all hail from the Suwon District Court and moved to the Seoul Central District Court in May 2025 to handle warrants. These judges have a history of making unfavorable decisions in cases related to Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party, which coincides with their current rejections of warrants related to former President Yoon Suk-yeol and First Lady Kim Kun-hee. This overlap raises cautious speculation about a certain judicial atmosphere. Of course, it cannot be concluded that all rejections of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court were made by these judges specializing in warrants.

Judge Lee Jung-jae – Dismissed the arrest warrant against Yoon Seok-yeol

Judge Lee Jung-jae recently dismissed the arrest warrant for former President Yoon Seok-yeol, which some experts interpret as having blocked this action from the early stages of the investigation. The special prosecutor presented charges of abuse of power and the creation of false official documents, but the judge dismissed the warrant on the grounds that there was a possibility of attendance. This decision, which did not acknowledge concerns about flight or evidence destruction, has drawn criticism for weakening the momentum of the investigation. He also ruled against the arrest warrant for a journalist accused of writing a false article about the apprehension of 99 spies. This ruling has received mixed evaluations, being seen positively as a protection of press freedom but also criticized for allowing public confusion due to false reporting. Notably, during his tenure at the Suwon District Court, this judge made decisions that supported the prosecution in cases such as the remittance scandal involving Representative Lee Jae-myung. There are reasonable questions regarding whether the pattern of past rulings and the current repetitive dismissals show a consistent trend. Attorney Kim Kyung-ho revealed that he reported Judge Lee Jung-jae of the Seoul Central District Court, who dismissed the arrest warrant for former President Yoon Seok-yeol, to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials on charges of abuse of power. On June 26, 2025, Kim posted on his Facebook that he had filed a complaint against Judge Lee for abusing his power in the dismissal of the arrest warrant, attaching the complaint as well.

Judge Jeong Jae-wook - Series of Warrant Denial Rulings in Economic Corruption Cases

Judge Jung Jae-wook is often mentioned as a central figure in the controversy over 'investigation paralyzation,' having repeatedly dismissed warrants in several high-profile financial investigations. Notably, in the investigation of a fraudulent loan case involving IBK Industrial Bank amounting to 80 billion won, he rejected a detention warrant for a suspect on the grounds of "no flight risk." A similar decision was made in the case involving NongHyup Bank during the same period. Given that these investigations raised concerns about the possibility of hundreds of billions of won in funds flowing into the political sphere, search and seizure warrants were a crucial tool in the investigation. In this context, the repeated dismissals have been criticized for blocking vital leads in the investigations. Judge Jung is also reported to be from the Suwon District Court, similar to Judge Lee Jung-jae, with comparable work locations and appointment times. There are speculations that some of the decisions to dismiss search warrants concerning Kim Ye-seong were also made by Judge Jung, but the court has not publicly disclosed its stance on this matter, leaving the related circumstances unverified.

Judge Park Jeong-ho – Presiding over the corporate card case of Mrs. Kim Hye-kyung

Chief Judge Park Jeong-ho is known as an "administrative expert" due to his experience in key positions within the Court Administration Office. He presided over the corporate credit card case involving Kim Hye-kyung, and the fact that the verdict in this case has been postponed for several months without notice has raised suspicions of political considerations. The timing of the postponement coincided with the period when the special investigation into former President Yoon Seok-yeol was intensifying, and there are interpretations suggesting that this may have been an attempt to indirectly influence public opinion. Judge Park is also from the Suwon District Court, and multiple media reports and testimonies from special investigation officials suggest that he appears to have been involved in at least one instance of dismissing a search warrant related to Kim Ye-seong, but the court has not yet confirmed this.

Kim Ye-seong and Jeon Seong-bae Case - Repeated Dismissals of Search Warrant Requests, Is it a Judicial Judgment or Structural Obstruction?

Concerns are being raised that the special prosecutor's investigation may have encountered structural obstacles from the early stages as the search warrants for Kim Ye-sung and Jeon Seong-bae, known as 'Geonjin Beopsa,' who were identified as close aides to First Lady Kim Gun-hee, have been consecutively dismissed. On July 9, the special prosecutor requested a search warrant targeting Kim Ye-sung as a key figure in the incident referred to as the 'Housekeeper Gate,' but the Seoul Central District Court dismissed it on the grounds that "it is not included as a target of investigation under the Special Prosecutor Act." The special prosecutor believed this case fell under Article 16 of the Special Prosecutor Act—which pertains to crimes recognized during the investigation process—and sought to initiate a compulsory investigation, but the court's ruling differed. This means that securing key evidence for identifying the facts was thwarted in the initial stage of the investigation. Subsequently, on July 10, the special prosecutor planned a large-scale search related to Jeon Seong-bae, known as 'Geonjin Beopsa,' but this was also reportedly dismissed by the court due to insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. Although the special prosecutor prepared for searches at dozens of locations and had police forces on standby, the execution was canceled due to the court's decision. Within the special prosecutor's office, there is a reflective atmosphere suggesting they might have hit a certain institutional resistance, given the consecutive dismissals of warrants over two days. Special Prosecutor Oh Jeong-hee initially clearly stated that the targets were included in the investigation but showed a retreating attitude the next day, indicating they would carefully review whether to reapply for the warrants. Under the reality of a short investigation period and a vast number of targets, it seems that internal concerns regarding efficiency and validity are deepening. Search warrants are the entry point of the investigation and the first gateway to uncovering the truth. The current situation, where this gateway is continuously blocked, suggests not merely an issue of a few rejections, but indicates a structural conflict between legal judgment standards and the special prosecutor's investigative authority. This could signal that the court is interpreting the scope of the special prosecutor’s investigation narrowly or may be the result of unseen caution considering societal repercussions. Ultimately, the phenomenon of all search warrants related to key figures surrounding Kim Ye-sung and Jeon Seong-bae being blocked may complicate access to substantive truths. National public skepticism is growing regarding whether these judgments result from legal rigor or whether pressures or considerations beyond the system are at play.

Organizational Structure - A Simple Cycle or a Designed Coordination

Among the four judges in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, except for Judge Nam Se-jin, who issued the arrest warrant for former President Yoon Seok-yeol, the remaining three—Lee Jeong-jae, Jeong Jae-wook, and Park Jeong-ho—were all transferred from the Suwon District Court and placed simultaneously in May 2025. This situation raises reasonable questions within and outside the legal community about whether such personnel changes and case allocations are mere rotations or politically coordinated outcomes. The judiciary of South Korea must operate based on independence and procedural legitimacy. However, the recent repeated decisions to reject warrants have sparked concerns that they cannot be interpreted solely through legal reasoning. In particular, the three rejections concerning Kim Ye-seong are statistically unusual, and given the personnel assignments and past judgment trends of the relevant judges, there are increasing suspicions that a judicial defensive line may be operating in connection with a specific political flow. The issues within the judiciary are now being distilled into problems of human composition rather than institutional issues. Public trust derives from independent and balanced judgments. If decisions continue to be made in a specific direction, trust cannot be restored, regardless of the outcomes. The argument that "we must change the people before fixing the system" is no longer viewed as an extreme call but rather as a demand of the times.