Lawyer Kim Kyungho accuses Kim Hyunwoo, the head of Seoul Detention Center.

Introduction

In 2025, following the arrest of former President Yoon Suk-yeol on charges of insurrection and abuse of power, the special prosecutor's investigation is facing a significant turning point that strikes at the heart of the national judicial system. However, in this process, actions that directly violate legal procedures and principles have occurred. The key figure is none other than the head of the Seoul Detention Center, Kim Hyun-woo. He has refused twice the special prosecutor's 'commanding authority' regarding former President Yoon Suk-yeol, creating an unprecedented situation. This goes beyond mere non-compliance with administrative procedures it is an act that shakes the foundations of the rule of law, revealing the political bias and incapacitation within public authority. This essay aims to critically examine the implications of Kim Hyun-woo's non-compliance with the special prosecutor's orders, integrating an analysis of his past actions and current circumstances, as well as critiquing the legal and political implications and the structural issues within the South Korean judicial system.

Summary of the incident and key issues

The special prosecutor issued a "forced appearance" directive to the Seoul Detention Center on July 14 and 15 to initiate an investigation against former President Yoon Suk-yeol. This is a legal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act, which involves forcibly bringing a suspect to the interrogation site if they refuse to appear before the investigative agency while in custody. However, Kim Hyun-woo, the warden of the Seoul Detention Center, refused this directive. His reason was none other than the "honor of a former president." He argued that Yoon Suk-yeol, as a former president, could not be treated like an ordinary suspect. Such refusal is clearly an illegal act. The "Law on the Honor of Former Presidents" does not specify any authority to refuse a special prosecutor's investigation or reasons to disobey directives. The investigation of a detained suspect is a legitimate authority guaranteed to the special prosecutor by South Korean law. Arbitrarily interpreting this and refusing it sends a signal that an administrative agency is unilaterally controlling the judicial system. In response, the special prosecutor sent another directive to Warden Kim Hyun-woo and investigated the specific reasons for the refusal among the correctional officers at the Seoul Detention Center. The special prosecutor also stated that if the refusal of directives continues, serious responsibility would be demanded.

The past actions and political context of Director Kim Hyun-woo

Kim Hyun-woo is not just an ordinary correctional officer. He has demonstrated biased judgments and actions in politically sensitive cases since his tenure as the warden of the Suwon Correctional Facility. A notable example is the case involving former Gyeonggi Province Deputy Governor Lee Hwa-young. At that time, Mr. Lee revealed that the prosecution had pressured and coerced him into making false statements regarding Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party. To verify this, members of the Democratic Party attempted to visit and meet with Mr. Lee at the Suwon Correctional Facility. However, Warden Kim Hyun-woo denied the meeting and blocked their attempts. This incident escalated into accusations of abuse of power by the state and political interference, contributing to the perception that Kim was complicit in the politicization of judicial institutions. Subsequently, in February 2025, just before the dismissal of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, Kim was abruptly promoted from the warden of Suwon Correctional Facility to the warden of Seoul Correctional Facility. Given the timing, the background of this personnel change, and the current actions obstructing the special investigation, there are suspicions that Kim Hyun-woo was a tailored appointment aimed at completing the last 'bulletproof' system following Yoon Suk-yeol's arrest. The appointment made by Acting President Choi Sang-mok at the recommendation of the acting Minister of Justice suggests a proactive push within the executive branch for personnel placement favorable to Yoon Suk-yeol.

Legal Issues: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Special Investigation

The refusal of Chief Kim Hyun-woo to comply with the special prosecutor's direction carries significant risks of violating both the criminal law and the special prosecutor law. First, Article 123 of the criminal law stipulates that the crime of 'obstructing the exercise of official authority' is established when a public official abuses their authority to impede the exercise of rights by others. The special prosecutor's directive regarding the detention of suspects is a legal right as a state agency, and the refusal of the prison warden to comply clearly obstructs this. Furthermore, according to Article 22 of the 'Special Act on Rebellion', obstructing the legitimate investigation of the special prosecutor or willfully refusing to comply with their directives is classified as a serious crime equivalent to obstruction of official duties. Consequently, lawyer Kim Kyung-ho filed a complaint against Chief Kim Hyun-woo of the Seoul Detention Center with the National Investigation Headquarters in the early hours of July 15. The complaint alleges that Chief Kim unlawfully refused to follow the special prosecutor's directives and assisted in evading the investigation of the detained suspect, thus applying clear charges of abuse of authority and obstruction of official duties by force.

Yoon Seok-yeol's side's refusal to undergo investigation and its duplicity

Former President Yoon Suk-yeol himself is not fully cooperating with the investigation. The special prosecutor has communicated the investigation schedule several times in writing and verbally, but Yoon's side has not provided any official response. This is different from simply exercising the right to remain silent. While there is a right to refuse to make a statement, there is no right to refuse to cooperate with an investigation. Yoon's team has not engaged with the special prosecutor officially but has created a narrative in the media portraying the investigation as an attempt to disgrace a former president. They even claim, "I am an ordinary citizen," while simultaneously asserting their status as a former president, demonstrating a contradictory attitude. This is a deception to the public and an act of mocking the legal system to suit their own interests. Yoon was a figure who harshly criticized the refusal of a suspect to appear before the law as an act of disregarding the public during his time as Attorney General. Now, in a situation where he stands before the law himself, he is adopting a completely different stance. As a result, the special prosecutor is even considering submitting Yoon directly to trial without an investigation, without extending the detention period.

Allegations of Structural Immunity in the Judiciary and Executive

This issue is raising suspicions not only within correctional facilities but also among some members of the judiciary. In particular, the simultaneous transfer of three chief judges from the Seoul Central District Court's warrant review division (Lee Jung-jae, Park Jung-ho, Jeong Jae-wook) to the Suwon District Court is attracting attention. All of them have a history of making unfavorable rulings in cases related to Lee Jae-myung, and they are the individuals who dismissed various warrants related to Kim Geon-hee one after another. The simultaneous movement at a specific time is an extremely unusual personnel action, leading to suspicions within the judiciary that it may have been a planned arrangement. The audio materials refer to these individuals, who act as a shield for power while wearing judicial robes, as "co-offenders in judicial robes," criticizing the existence of a deeply rooted political cartel within the South Korean judicial system. This complex collusion between the judiciary and the executive is undermining special investigation efforts and seriously damaging the principle of equality before the law.

Conclusion

The refusal of Chief Kim Hyun-woo of Seoul Detention Center to comply with the special prosecution's command is not merely an administrative noncompliance by a public official. It is a serious abuse of power that undermines the national judicial system and arbitrarily distorts the law for the personal protection of a former president. Considering his past actions and background, this case is part of a larger trend of politicization of correctional administration and erosion of the rule of law. Despite exercising legitimate authority, the special prosecution is facing organized resistance from both the detention center head and the suspect, which tests the credibility and legitimacy of the entire criminal justice system in South Korea, not just the investigation of one former president. Now, the law is not a choice but an obligation. Even if Yoon Seok-yeol is a former president, he cannot stand above the law. Those involved, including Chief Kim Hyun-woo, must respond before the law, and the special prosecution must pursue accountability and restore legal order. The rule of law must not be shaken by catering to the 'feelings' of one former president. We must not forget that justice in South Korea is for all citizens, not a shield for one individual.