“Yoon Suk-yeol Released”… Prosecution’s Judgment Takes a 180-degree Turn Compared to 10 Years Ago
Prosecution Waives Immediate Appeal on Court’s Decision to Cancel Yoon Suk-yeol’s Arrest, Leading to His Release
Today (March 8, 2025), the prosecution released President Yoon Suk-yeol, accepting the court’s decision to cancel his detention. The prosecution chose to forgo its right to an immediate appeal, a legal mechanism that would have allowed them to challenge the court’s ruling. The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office issued a statement explaining that such an appeal had potential constitutional violations and was therefore not pursued.
Interestingly, ten years ago, the National Assembly attempted to remove the immediate appeal clause from the Criminal Procedure Act, citing its potential unconstitutionality. At that time, however, the prosecution strongly opposed the change, arguing that the clause was not unconstitutional.
In summary, the prosecution, which previously defended the immediate appeal process by stating it had no constitutional issues, has now reversed its stance, citing constitutional concerns as the reason for not exercising its legal authority. As a result, President Yoon has been released.
Yoon Suk-yeol Walks Free After 52 Days of Detention
At 5:48 PM, President Yoon walked out of Seoul Detention Center, waving to supporters, raising his fist, and bowing to the crowd. He spent about three minutes greeting his supporters before getting into a vehicle provided by the Presidential Security Service. About 30 minutes later, he arrived at his official residence in Hannam-dong, Yongsan, Seoul.
This marks the end of 52 days of detention, following his January 15 arrest on charges of leading an insurrection.
Yesterday, the Seoul Central District Court (Criminal Division 25, Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon) ruled to cancel President Yoon’s arrest, shifting the legal responsibility to the prosecution.
Under Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Bail, Cancellation of Detention, and Prosecutor’s Opinion), the prosecution has the right to immediately appeal the court’s decision to cancel a suspect’s detention.
However, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office chose not to exercise this right. Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung ordered the Special Investigation Headquarters to release President Yoon. Shortly after, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office issued an official statement:
“Considering the Constitutional Court’s decision that prioritizing prosecutorial objections over judicial rulings could effectively nullify court decisions, as well as the constitutional principle of warrant-based legal procedures, we have decided not to file an immediate appeal.”
— Statement from the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office (March 8, 2025)
What Does This Mean?
In 2012, the Constitutional Court ruled that a prosecutor’s immediate appeal against detention suspension was unconstitutional. The prosecution is now extending this 2012 ruling to argue that immediate appeals against detention cancellations could also be unconstitutional.
A 180-degree Shift: Prosecution Once Argued “No Constitutional Issues” in Immediate Appeals
Ten years ago, the prosecution took the opposite stance from the decision they made today regarding President Yoon’s release.
On June 17, 2015, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly held a Subcommittee on Bill Review to discuss amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act based on the 2012 Constitutional Court ruling.
During the discussion, some lawmakers suggested removing not just the immediate appeal for detention suspension but also for detention cancellations from the law.
At that time, however, the prosecution strongly opposed the proposal. While they agreed with abolishing immediate appeals for detention suspensions, they insisted that immediate appeals for detention cancellations must remain, arguing that the two legal mechanisms were fundamentally different.
Kim Joo-hyun, then Vice Minister of Justice, stated:
“There is no disagreement regarding the abolition of immediate appeals for detention suspension. However, the court’s cancellation of detention is fundamentally different from a temporary suspension. Unlike detention suspension, which is time-limited and often based on specific conditions (such as attending a relative’s funeral), detention cancellation is a final decision regarding custody status. Therefore, the Constitutional Court’s ruling on detention suspension should not automatically apply to detention cancellation.”
— National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Bill Review Subcommittee (June 17, 2015)
The prosecution further elaborated, arguing that detention cancellations warranted a second review process through an immediate appeal, unlike temporary detention suspensions.
Kim Joo-hyun, then Vice Minister of Justice, continued:
“For example, most cases of detention suspension involve temporary circumstances such as attending a relative’s funeral. If an immediate appeal process delays the suspension, it loses its purpose. In contrast, detention cancellation is a permanent custody decision, and the prosecution must retain the right to challenge it. Therefore, applying the Constitutional Court’s ruling to detention cancellation is not appropriate and requires further review.”
— National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Bill Review Subcommittee (June 17, 2015)
In conclusion, the prosecution opposed abolishing immediate appeals for detention cancellations.
Kim Joo-hyun, then Vice Minister of Justice, stated:
“In France, they have an injunction system to prevent flight risks even after a release decision. These international practices must also be considered, so our position is to review this issue carefully.”
— National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Bill Review Subcommittee (June 17, 2015)
Ultimately, the prosecution’s position prevailed, and Article 97, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which grants prosecutors the right to challenge a detention cancellation, remains in effect to this day.
Prosecution’s Sudden Reversal, Leading to Yoon’s Release
To summarize, the prosecution fought to retain the right to immediately appeal detention cancellations in 2015, arguing that there were no constitutional concerns. However, in 2025, they abandoned this legal mechanism, citing constitutional concerns. As a result, President Yoon was released.
One fact symbolically highlights this reversal:
Kim Joo-hyun, the Vice Minister of Justice who defended the immediate appeal system in 2015, is now serving as the Senior Presidential Secretary for Civil Affairs.
▲ President Yoon Suk-yeol and Kim Joo-hyun, Senior Presidential Secretary for Civil Affairs (Source: Presidential Office)
The Presidential Office welcomed the court’s decision to cancel Yoon’s detention. Notably, Kim Joo-hyun, who previously defended the immediate appeal system, has not reiterated his past stance on the issue.