Yoon Seok-youl appears at the Seoul Central District Court for a detention review hearing.

The seriousness and context of the incident

In July 2025, South Korea once again faced a tumultuous challenge at the center of constitutional order and judicial justice. Following the arrest of former President Yoon Seok-yeol on charges of conspiracy to commit insurrection and rebellion, his request for a review of the legality of his detention and the court's ruling on this issue have significant repercussions across society. This matter transcends a mere criminal procedure involving a former head of state and reexamines the accountability of power and the boundaries of judicial authority. In particular, the nature of the martial law documents, the procedural legitimacy raised during the investigation and trial, and the conflicts of constitutional rights in unprecedented detention all pose clear questions regarding the judicial and political balance. This article aims to reconstruct the entire process of former President Yoon's detention, his non-compliance with the investigation, his responses during the trial, and the hearing on the review of his detention, while summarizing the institutional challenges revealed by these events.

Background of the Martial Law Documents and Arrests

The beginning of the incident lies in the 'martial law document' drafted during former President Yoon's term. This document included specific execution procedures for deploying military forces, controlling communications, and seizing administrative functions in the event of nationwide chaos. Special Prosecutor Jo Eun-seok's team judged that this document was not merely a scenario analysis but a plan with actual implementation possibilities, and thus initiated an investigation on charges of insurrection and rebellion. Evidence has been secured, including the document's drafting and reporting channels, testimony from related individuals, and minutes classified as confidential, leading to the issuance of an arrest warrant for former President Yoon. The former president's side argued that the document was merely an internal review document, but the court recognized the necessity of arrest based on the seriousness of the charges and the public danger of the matter. This process has created an unprecedented record of the arrest on charges of insurrection against a former president in the constitutional history of South Korea.

Refusal to Appear and Health Status Controversy

After the arrest, the special prosecution immediately sought to initiate a full investigation against former President Yoon. The first summons was notified on July 11, which was intended as a request for voluntary appearance. However, former President Yoon refused this, citing his health condition in the detention center. He stated that his blood sugar levels were high, and he could not respond to the investigation due to respiratory difficulties and digestive issues. In response, the special prosecution issued a second summons on July 14, based on the judgment of medical personnel. While the detention center concluded that an investigation was not impossible, former President Yoon's side maintained its original position and continued to refuse to cooperate. Additionally, they claimed that the investigation team harbored political intentions and that a neutral investigation was impossible. The special prosecution reviewed the possibility of forced attendance internally, but considering the impending schedule for the review of the legality of detention, decided to defer actual execution. As this pattern of refusal continued, tension between the investigation and the exercise of the right to defense escalated.

Refusal to Attend Trial and Legal Disputes

A similar pattern was repeated in the criminal trial proceedings. After the first trial, former President Yoon did not attend the second trial scheduled for July 17. He cited health issues as the reason for his absence, but behind that lay legal concerns regarding the special prosecutor's direct involvement in the trial. The defense team explained that former President Yoon's physical condition made basic mobility difficult, and that prolonged waiting in court was physiologically impossible. They also continuously asserted that the special prosecutor was intimidating the defendant's right to defense. In response, the prosecution raised concerns over the defendant's violation of the obligation to attend the trial and requested a summons. The court proceeded with the scheduled witness examination as an external evidence investigation, even in the absence of the defendant. During this process, all major testimonies were accepted and remained as records that could have a substantial impact on future rulings. The court simultaneously made it clear that mere assertions could not secure legitimacy by demanding health examination materials and specific legal arguments regarding the claim of unconstitutionality from former President Yoon's side.

Legal Issues Regarding the Petition for Release from Detention

On July 16, former President Yoon's side filed a request for a review of the lawfulness of detention at the Seoul Central District Court. This is a procedure to reassess the legality and necessity of continued detention, ensuring a prompt hearing in accordance with criminal procedure law. There are two key issues in the review of the lawfulness of detention. One is whether it is lawful to file a separate arrest warrant while a trial is already underway for the same charges of insurrection. Former President Yoon's side argues that this constitutes 'de facto double detention' and views it as a violation of criminal procedure law. The other issue is that the deterioration of health after detention makes it difficult to continue living in custody. The defense team has stated that they will submit medical records and a diagnosis to prove this. On the other hand, the special prosecutor emphasizes the necessity of maintaining detention based on the legitimacy of the arrest warrant issuance, concerns about the destruction of evidence, and precedents of non-compliance with investigations.

Court hearing attendance and positions of both sides

On July 18th at around 9 AM, former President Yoon arrived at the Seoul Central District Court via a Ministry of Justice transport vehicle. After moving to the detention center through a separate route to avoid media exposure, he participated in a closed-door hearing starting at 10:15 AM. This hearing is notable as it is the only judicial procedure in which former President Yoon directly participates, and it is also the process where both sides present their arguments most fiercely. Former President Yoon claimed the seriousness of his health condition and the illegality of the execution of the arrest warrant, providing legal and medical justifications for these claims. On the other hand, the special prosecutor's office defended the necessity of the arrest based on instances of absence after the arrest, the feasibility of the martial law documents, and the risk of obstructing the investigation. Both sides prepared dozens of pages of written documents and visual materials to present their arguments. The court is expected to make a decision within 24 hours after the hearing's conclusion, and this outcome is projected to have significant implications for future trials and investigation directions.

The Direction of Judicial Decisions and Social Significance

The recent decision on the detention review serves as a mirror reflecting the balance between the exercise of authority by investigative agencies and the protection of the defendant's right to defense, beyond just the matter of an individual's detention status. If the decision is made to maintain the detention, the special prosecutor will have a legal basis to continue the compulsory investigation, potentially imposing a limitation on former President Yoon's strategy of not appearing for questioning and trial. Conversely, if the detention is lifted, the defense side can broaden its exercise of rights, and investigative agencies may be required to adopt a more sophisticated approach in future investigations. This judgment has the potential to set a precedent for similar cases in the future and will formally articulate the judiciary's position on how to balance the tensions between the criminal responsibility of high-ranking officials and adherence to legal procedures.

Conclusion: The Intersection of System and Rule of Law

The hearing for the warrant review of former President Yoon Seok-yeol has transcended a simple suspect interrogation and has entered a phase that tests the practical functioning of law and institutions. This case raises questions about how the application of the law to those in power should be conducted within the constitutional system, while also assessing how to harmonize the political neutrality of investigative agencies with the constitutional rights of the accused. Institutions do not operate solely based on explicit regulations they require judicial interpretation and a sense of balance in specific circumstances. This judgment will not only determine the fate of a former president but will also lead to collective reflection on the future operation of the judiciary.