March 10, 2025
SEOUL – President Yoon Suk Yeol was released from jail Saturday after a court accepted his request to overturn his arrest over his short-lived imposition of martial law in early December.
Yoon had been held in detention since Jan. 15 on insurrection charges related to his Dec. 3 declaration of martial law that plunged South Korea into political turmoil, national division and economic uncertainty.
On Saturday, a special investigation team of the prosecution ordered Yoon’s release from custody at the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province. The move came one day after the Seoul Central District Court approved Yoon’s request last month to cancel his arrest.
Yoon’s release on Saturday marked a critical moment for the country’s ongoing political crisis, even though it is unclear whether it could affect the outcome of the final impeachment ruling due from the Constitutional Court.
The district court’s decision and Yoon’s discharge suggest that there have been legal issues with the way the prosecution and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials handled Yoon’s impeachment case.
There is no question that Yoon’s abrupt declaration of martial law, purportedly as a warning about a national crisis allegedly created by the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea, went too far in multiple ways. That is why he was impeached by the National Assembly on Dec. 14.
But questions and controversies arose about the prosecution’s indictment procedure and the detention period, intensifying political wrangling between the ruling and opposition parties.
As for the release order, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that the Jan. 26 indictment of Yoon, filed after the expiration of the detention period, constituted grounds for the cancellation of custody.
Prosecutors calculated detention periods based on calendar days. However, the court determined that the period should be measured in hours, and by this standard, the prosecution had exceeded the initial 10-day detention limit when it indicted Yoon over the insurrection charges.
The court also found that there was another critical issue beyond the technical question of time calculation. Even if the indictment had been filed within the detention period, the court ruled that the absence of clear legal provisions granting the CIO jurisdiction over insurrection cases justified the cancellation of Yoon’s custody.
In Yoon’s case, the CIO conducted the investigation into his alleged insurrection and the prosecution brought the indictment. Given the legal ambiguity surrounding the CIO’s authority in such cases, the court deemed it appropriate to release Yoon from jail before proceeding with the trial.
Pushing ahead with the trial without resolving the legal dispute could provide grounds for the case to be overturned on appeal or even for a retrial in the future, the court warned.
Critics earlier pointed out that the investigation into Yoon has been fraught with legal problems from the outset. Under the current law, only the police have jurisdiction over insurrection cases. But the prosecution and the CIO aggressively pursued the case in its early stages, even though they lack the necessary authority.
Another fundamental issue to ponder is that the CIO’s ambiguous scope of investigation could continue to raise legal questions and political conflicts.
Although Yoon is now set to stand trial without physical detention, controversies are expected to continue until — or even after — the Constitutional Court issues its final ruling on his impeachment.
In consideration of the explosive nature of the ongoing political turmoil, political parties must refrain from engaging in wasteful fights and pressuring the Constitutional Court. After all, what the country needs now is to ensure that all procedures adhere strictly to the law, thereby eliminating any grounds for future controversy.