The legal community reacts to Yeon’s claim that it is “illegal and invalid.”
The Corruption Investigation Office has no authority to investigate treason?… “The issuance of a court warrant should be viewed as recognition of investigative authority.”
Is it illegal to request a warrant at the Western District Court?… “There is no problem filing a claim with the court in the suspect’s location.”
The issue of a warrant exception to the application of criminal law?… “It is possible with a search warrant” “The court is abusing its power”
While the High-ranking Public Officials’ Crime Investigation Agency (KOFIC), which is investigating the declaration of martial law on December 3, failed to execute an arrest warrant for President Yoon Seok-yeol on the 3rd, President Yoon’s side is waging a public opinion war, calling it an “illegal and invalid arrest and search warrant.” In the legal community, there is an opinion that the issuance of warrants and execution by the Corruption Investigation Office is legal as the martial law military leaders, including former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, have been arrested one after another on charges of engaging in important civil war missions, and President Yoon, who is suspected of being the leader of the civil war, is not responding at all to the investigation. There are a lot of these.
President Yoon’s legal representatives argued that △the Corruption Investigation Office does not have the authority to investigate treason crimes; △the Corruption Investigation Office has jurisdiction over warrants at the Seoul Central District Court; △the warrant was requested from the Seoul Western District Court; △the court prohibited the seizure and search of secret locations and objects for military or official purposes. This is based on the fact that the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act is excluded from search warrants.
First, the majority of the legal community is of the opinion that since the court issued an arrest warrant for President Yoon on suspicion of being the leader of the rebellion, it should be seen as acknowledging the Corruption Investigation Office’s authority to investigate the crime of rebellion. Seo Bo-hak, a professor at Kyung Hee University Law School, said, “Because the court’s warrant was issued legally, we can respond by raising an objection, which is a method of redress of rights written in the law.” He added, “Refusing execution of a lawful warrant is difficult to understand.” He said. Jang Young-soo, a professor at Korea University Law School, also said, “It is difficult to say that it was wrong to issue an arrest warrant because President Yoon failed to comply with the summons and interrogation three times.”
In the legal world, there are more opinions that there is no problem in the fact that the Corruption Investigation Office requested a warrant from the Seoul Western District Court, the court with jurisdiction over President Yoon’s residence (Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul) rather than the Seoul Central District Court. The Corruption Investigation Office Act stipulates that the court with jurisdiction over cases directly prosecuted by the Corruption Investigation Office is the Seoul Central District Court, but there is no separate provision for the court with jurisdiction over warrants. Han Sang-hoon, a professor at Yonsei University Law School, said, “The warrant requested by the Corruption Investigation Office should be viewed as applying the general criminal procedure law,” and added, “The jurisdictional court is usually determined by the location of the (suspect).” Professor Jang also said, “There are cases where a warrant is requested from a nearby court because it is judged that requesting a warrant from the competent court will take much more time.”
The prevailing opinion is that when the court issued an arrest warrant for President Yoon, it was also legal to state in the search warrant that ‘the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act is excluded.’ It is said that the two provisions were merely brought to attention by interpreting that they do not apply to search warrants to secure the identity of a suspect, as they apply to the seizure and search of objects. Cha Seong-an, a former judge and professor at the Law School of the University of Seoul, said, “We have carefully confirmed that Articles 110 and 111 do not apply at all to ‘searches’ to find suspects.” He said, “I didn’t think there was any need to give the right to veto.” On the other hand, there is a view that the court abused its power. Professor Jang said, “Warrants are issued in accordance with the Constitution and law, but the fact that the issued warrant excludes the effect of the law, which is a higher standard, is itself a logical contradiction and a violation of the separation of powers.”
Reporter Son Jun-young [email protected]
-
- great
- 0dog
-
- I’m sad
- 0dog
-
- I’m angry
- 0dog