SEOUL, South Korea — Following the formal arrest of South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol, his lawyers announced on Sunday that he remains steadfast in his decision not to respond to inquiries surrounding the martial law declaration he put forth last month.
Yoon was apprehended early Sunday morning, shortly after being removed from his presidential residence in Seoul. He faces potential incarceration related to the brief imposition of martial law, an action that has led to the most significant political turmoil in the country since it embraced democracy in the late 1980s.
His arrest could initiate an extended detention period that may last for months.
The court’s decision to issue Yoon’s arrest sparked significant unrest at the Seoul Western District Court, where numerous supporters shattered the main entrance and broke windows. They resorted to using plastic chairs, metal beams, and police shields that they had taken from law enforcement officers. Many were observed hurling objects, deploying fire extinguishers, demolishing furniture and office equipment, breaking glass doors, and spraying water on computer servers. Supporters demanded to see the judge responsible for the warrant, but she had already departed.
In response, hundreds of police officers were dispatched, leading to the arrest of nearly 90 demonstrators. Some injured officers were seen receiving medical attention from ambulances. The court is currently working to determine if any of its staff were harmed and to assess the extent of the damage caused.
Through his lawyers, Yoon expressed disappointment that the court dismissed the “just purpose” behind his martial law decree, while also encouraging his supporters to peacefully voice their frustrations. He called for police to adopt a softer approach toward the demonstrators.
Despite this appeal, hundreds of Yoon’s supporters continued to confront law enforcement, extending their protests into the evening outside Seoul’s Constitutional Court. This court is in the process of deliberating whether to formally oust the impeached president or restore him to his position. At least three protesters were taken into custody at the scene; however, there were no immediate reports of damage to the court, which had been secured with barricades by the police.
The court expressed concerns that Yoon posed a risk of destroying evidence, leading to the approval of law enforcement’s request for an arrest warrant. Yoon and his legal team had appeared before the court and advocated for his release just days prior.
The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials, which is collaborating with police and military on the investigation, can now legally keep Yoon in custody for a maximum of 20 days as they prepare to hand over the case for potential indictment.
Investigators are scrutinizing whether Yoon’s declaration of martial law on December 3 could be classified as an attempted insurrection. While South Korean presidents generally enjoy broad immunity from prosecution during their term, this protection does not cover allegations related to rebellion or treachery.
Yoon’s defense team may file a petition to contest the court’s arrest warrant, but he has chosen to forgo the questioning arranged by investigators and remains at a detention facility.
Key figures, including Yoon’s defense minister, police chief, and several high-ranking military officials, have already been arrested and indicted for their involvement in the enforcement of martial law.
The crisis began when Yoon attempted to navigate through legislative stagnation by imposing military authority and deploying troops to the National Assembly and electoral offices. The standoff lasted only a few hours as lawmakers were able to reach the assembly and voted to revoke the military decree. The impeachment process was initiated by a vote in the opposition-led assembly on December 14, leaving Yoon’s political future in the hands of the Constitutional Court.
Seok Dong-hyeon, one of Yoon’s legal representatives, described the arrest as an embodiment of “anti-constitutionalism and anti-rule of law.” He noted that the unrest would likely incite further anger among Yoon’s supporters.
Yoon’s party, the People Power Party, expressed regret over his arrest and pleaded with supporters to avoid further violence. In contrast, the opposition Democratic Party, which spearheaded the impeachment efforts, asserted that his arrest represents a step toward restoring the country’s fractured constitutional order and called for strict repercussions for the rioters.
Acting leader Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok voiced significant regret regarding the riots, asserting that such actions undermine democracy and the rule of law. He requested heightened security at locations connected to Yoon’s case, including the Constitutional Court, and measures to maintain order during protests.
Yoon continuing to maintain that his martial law decree was legitimate, claimed it was meant to serve as a temporary and “peaceful” warning against the liberal opposition, which he accuses of hindering his agenda through its majority in the legislature. He asserted that the military presence at the National Election Commission was to probe claims of election fraud that remain unproven in South Korea.
Yoon has emphasized that he never intended to disrupt legislative operations, stating that the deployment of troops was intended for maintaining order rather than blocking lawmakers from convening and voting to annul the martial law. He maintains that he did not order the detention of significant political figures or election officials.
Conversely, military leaders contend that there was a deliberate attempt to seize legislative control, thwarted by civilian efforts and the troops’ reluctance to follow Yoon’s commands.
If prosecutors decide to indict Yoon on charges of rebellion and abuse of power, as current investigations suggest, he could be held for up to six months prior to trial. Should he be convicted and sentenced by an initial court ruling, the case may subsequently progress to the Seoul High Court and potentially the Supreme Court. Under South Korean law, orchestrating a rebellion could lead to life imprisonment or, in extreme cases, the death penalty.
