'Yoon Detention Extension' Denied, Joo Jin-woo Says "Entirely Democratic Party's Responsibility"

On the 25th, Joo Jin-woo, a member of the People Power Party, pointed out that the prosecution's request to extend the detention period of President Yoon Seok-yeol was dismissed the day before, blaming it on "the Democratic Party's unreasonable design of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) law."

On the 25th, Joo Jin-woo, a member of the People Power Party, pointed out that the prosecution's request to extend the detention period of President Yoon Seok-yeol was dismissed the previous day, attributing it to "the Democratic Party of Korea's unreasonable design of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO)." Yonhap News

원본보기 아이콘

Joo, who is the chairman of the party's legal advisory committee, stated on his Facebook that "the Democratic Party unilaterally designed the 'Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials' (CIO Act) in a strange way and pushed for illegal investigations, claiming they could not trust the prosecution."

The Prosecution's Special Investigation Headquarters under Emergency Martial Law (Headed by High Prosecutor Park Se-hyun) applied again on the morning of the same day to the Seoul Central District Court to approve the extension of President Yoon's detention period. This was about four hours after the court rejected the prosecution's previous extension request the day before. President Yoon's first detention period expires on the 27th, and if the court denies the reapplication, the prosecution must either indict or release President Yoon. The requested extension period is until the 6th of next month, the same as the previous application.

Regarding this, Joo criticized, "The prosecution should immediately release the president and make a new legal judgment. The 'reapplication for extension' after just four hours was premature," adding, "It is obvious that it will be dismissed again." He also explained the meaning of the extension denial, saying, "It means the court regarded the 'existence of investigative authority' as an important issue," and "If there is a trial in the future, the police will not investigate, and the illegality of the CIO's investigation through unreasonable and convenient legal interpretation will be a recurring problem."

He further stated, "The arrest warrant obtained from the Western District Court is a trick and will face public opinion that it was a wrong warrant decision. It was also strange that the arrest warrant was requested from the Western District Court for the first time in four years since the CIO's launch, for a case that should be indicted at the Central District Court," and criticized, "Exercising the right to remain silent and undergoing impeachment trials, yet the judgment that there is a risk of evidence destruction is beyond common sense." "Even if the prosecution forcibly indicts with detention, the possibility of bail release by the court has become very high," he said. "The public has seen that the CIO could not conduct any investigation and handed the case over to the prosecution. This situation raises the question of why the detention was made."

He also said, "The prosecution can only decide whether to indict, and it is correct to interpret that the CIO does not have investigative authority according to the legal text," adding, "If there is doubt about investigative authority, it is natural under the principle of due process that a non-detention trial should be conducted." Furthermore, he emphasized, "All these situations are due to the Democratic Party unilaterally designing the CIO Act strangely and pushing for illegal investigations by the CIO, claiming they could not trust the prosecution," stressing, "The responsibility lies entirely with the Democratic Party."

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.