Attorney Kim Kyung-ho files a complaint against the chief of the Seoul Detention Center

Introduction - A report is a warning.

On July 15, 2025, lawyer Kim Kyung-ho filed a complaint with the National Investigation Headquarters against Kim Hyun-woo, the head of the Seoul Detention Center, for abuse of authority and obstruction of public duty by force. The complaint was resolute. "This complaint is not merely to hold a public official accountable but to express the urgent outcry of society as a whole to restore a collapsed rule of law." Lawyer Kim characterized this matter not as simple noncompliance with duty, but as an anti-rule-of-law criminal act that tramples constitutional principles and undermines the criminal justice system. The essence of this case is clear. It is an unprecedented situation where a correctional officer arbitrarily refused a warrant issued according to legitimate legal procedures. The moment it became a reality that an individual, who should stand before the law due to being a former president, could evade the judgment of law under the head of the detention center's discretion, the rule of law in South Korea came to a halt at the threshold.

Incident Overview - Blocking the Law Under the Name of 'Yeo-woo'

On July 14 and 15, 2024, the special prosecution team led by Jo Eun-seok obtained a valid arrest warrant from the court to investigate former President Yoon Seok-yeol, who is suspect of insurrection and foreign exchange violations. This warrant is a legitimate legal procedure that allows for the forcible appearance of a suspect who has failed to respond to an investigation, according to the Special Prosecution Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. However, Kim Hyun-woo, the head of the Seoul Detention Center, did not execute this warrant. He instructed his staff to refuse the execution of the warrant, citing the unfounded "courtesy to a former president" and the "difficulty of using physical force." This is not only a clear violation of the law but also an act of destroying the rule of law by unilaterally blocking the legal orders set forth by the Constitution and the Special Prosecution Act. Attorney Kim Kyung-ho interprets this as an organized and active obstruction of justice rather than a simple procedural resistance or misjudgment. Despite the special prosecution's attempts to enforce the arrest warrant twice, the repeated refusal to do so in the same manner is a clear instance of planned and systematic denial of the law's execution.

Criminal charges - a clear violation of the law

The charges specified by Attorney Kim Kyung-ho in the complaint are twofold. (1) Abuse of Authority in Public Office (Article 123 of the Penal Code) Article 123 of the Penal Code punishes cases where a public official abuses their authority to obstruct the exercise of others' rights. The 'authority' referred to here means the legal power that a public official holds in the course of their duties, and that authority must be exercised according to the purposes and procedures established by law. Director Kim Hyun-woo possesses extensive authority over the operation of correctional facilities, supervision, and management of inmates. However, Article 6, Section 7 of the Special Prosecution Act for Insurrection stipulates that 'all state agencies must comply with the investigation cooperation request of the special prosecutor.' This means that the warden has no discretion over the legitimate summons directive from the special prosecution. Nevertheless, Director Kim refused the warrant and instead used his authority to obstruct law enforcement. This is a misuse of authority, as it deviates from the intended purpose of that authority. Additionally, the special prosecution is entitled to the power of compulsory investigation against suspects under the Special Prosecution Act for Insurrection and the Criminal Procedure Act, and Director Kim's actions directly blocked the practical exercise of this legitimate right. (2) Obstruction of Official Duties through Force (Article 22 of the Special Prosecution Act for Insurrection) Article 22 of the Special Prosecution Act for Insurrection states that 'anyone who obstructs the performance of duties by the special prosecutor through deceit or force shall be punished.' Here, 'force' includes not only physical coercion but also any acts that systematically hinder the execution of duties by using one's position or authority. As the warden, Kim Hyun-woo has direct personnel authority and command over the correctional officers, and he organized efforts to instruct them not to cooperate with the execution of the warrant through this authority. This is a typical exercise of force that obstructed judicial execution through political authority, and in fact, the failure to carry out the summons resulted in a substantial hindrance to the special prosecutor's performance of duties.

The essence is not a refusal of one person.

Lawyer Kim Kyungho clearly states in the complaint that this case is not just a matter concerning a public official named Kim Hyunwoo. This situation leaves a dangerous societal precedent that “the legal measures specified in law can be denied simply because of the reason of being a former president.” It is an incident that institutionally undermines the core principle of the rule of law, which is ‘equality before the law.’ If someone's status or past power can take precedence over legal obligations, that society is no longer a republic. The judicial justice guaranteed to the people by the constitution loses its legitimacy the moment exceptions are made for a privileged few. Lawyer Kim Kyungho describes it as “an incident where the operation of the law stopped at the door of the detention center.” This is not just a simple expression. The reality that judicial power delegated by the people can be blocked at the final execution stage by the arbitrary judgment of a lower-ranking public official reveals the fatal flaw in the rule of law in South Korea.

The nation must respond.

What is now needed is the response of the state. Attorney Kim Kyung-ho's accusation is not just a matter of holding legal responsibility, but a question of whether government power itself is willing to uphold the principles of law granted to it. If this case is brushed aside without thorough investigation and decisive punishment, the Republic of Korea may have any future legal orders rendered ineffective according to the 'political judgment of the instructed party.' At that moment, the law is no longer the ultimate authority, and the constitution becomes a collection of clauses selected based on the whims of those in power. Attorney Kim Kyung-ho demands, 'The National Investigation Headquarters must investigate thoroughly and punish strictly, solely according to the law, without political considerations.' That is the only way to restore the balance of the rule of law that has been undermined by this incident.

Conclusion - This testimony is a record and a warning.

This accusation is a record. An incident where the status of being a former president acted as a shield to evade the judgment of the law. And the reality that the person who held that shield was a public official who was supposed to enforce the law for the people. This accusation is also a warning. It is a declaration that those who obstruct the functioning of the law cannot claim immunity, regardless of their intentions, positions, or honors. Attorney Kim Kyung-ho says, 'When justice is silent, the law dies.' South Korea is now at a crossroads that will determine the life or death of the rule of law. It is now the state's turn to respond.