The court aimed at the target of rebellion. The first warning against political investigation has been fired. Hanmi Ilbo Graphics

The rejection of the arrest warrants sought by the special prosecutor against former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn and former Minister of Justice Park Sung-jae is noteworthy not simply for the rejection itself, but because the judiciary has defined the identity of the special prosecutor in this case. 

The court specified three reasons for the rejection. 

Lack of necessity for detention, Room for dispute regarding the charges, Insufficient evidence of concerns about the destruction of evidence. 

These three statements mean that the basic requirements for seeking an arrest warrant were not met. Furthermore, they indicate that the special prosecutor lacked any legal basis to construct charges of rebellion. 

Therefore, this rejection is not merely a procedural halt, but is tantamount to the judiciary effectively ruling that the direction, motive, and structure of the special prosecutor's investigation itself originated from political objectives.

Rebellion is a crime at the highest level of the state's penal system. It requires clear elements such as the substantial risk of an uprising, significant infringement on state functions, and the likelihood of collapse of state authority. However, the grounds submitted by the special prosecutor to the court did not meet any of these criteria. 

While attempting to fit political acts such as requesting a meeting with the president, criticizing the administration, and expressing political opinions into the elements of joint perpetration of rebellion, the special prosecutor failed to present any evidence explaining the likelihood or actual risk of an uprising, let alone its substance. 

The court's statement that there is "significant room for dispute regarding the charges" precisely targets this aspect. To apply the gravest crime of rebellion, the legal requirements must be robust, but the special prosecutor's warrant was built on thin air.

Furthermore, the court's notation of "lack of necessity for detention" reflects the judgment that the special prosecutor abused the compulsory measure of detention to achieve political objectives. For a rebellion warrant, one should present the risk of an uprising, the likelihood of further offenses, and serious threats to public safety. However, the special prosecutor failed to present any such substantial risks. 

Ultimately, this decision is read as the judiciary's quiet but firm declaration that "it was politics, not a crime."

"Insufficient evidence of concerns about the destruction of evidence" is also very important. 

Despite alleging the serious crime of rebellion, the special prosecutor failed to explain the 'risk of evidence disappearing.' This implies that the special prosecutor's charges were constructed based on a political framework, and the court accurately identified this flaw. 

The court did not merely state that the 'explanation was insufficient,' but effectively ruled that 'the rebellion charges you are asserting have no legal substance.' 

These three judgments are interconnected and lead to a single conclusion: 'the special prosecutor's investigation originated from politics, not the law.' 

If so, the meaning of this rejection is clear. 

Through this rejection of the arrest warrant, the judiciary has essentially defined the special prosecutor as a political subcontractor. The investigation team's method of submitting a warrant that did not even meet legal requirements, cloaked in the grand term of 'rebellion,' likely appeared as an overreach and abuse to the judiciary in its pursuit of political objectives. The court did not tolerate this overreach any further. 

Therefore, this rejection is read not as an "arrest warrant rejection" but as a "definition of the special prosecutor's identity."

If the special prosecutor does not understand this warning, the situation will worsen. The sword of 'rebellion,' if wielded incorrectly, cuts oneself rather than the opponent. The more impatient the administration becomes, the more frequently that sword appears, but the judiciary has now sheathed that sword with this decision. 

One question remains. Will the special prosecutor acknowledge this line drawn by the court? Or will they solidify their stigma as a political subcontractor? The court has already given its initial answer. The ball is now in the special prosecutor's court.

#RebellionSpecialProsecutor #HwangKyoAhn #ParkSungJae #ArrestWarrantRejection #JudicialJudgment #PoliticalInvestigation #SubcontractedProsecutorControversy #CourtWarning #RebellionFrame #LeeJaeMyungGovernment #JudicialIndependence #HanmiIlbo