Judge Ji Gwi-yeon [Yonhap News Photo Composite] 

If the police suddenly handcuffed a passerby and said, "Prove you didn't steal that store's merchandise," nothing could be more absurd.

It is the police's job to find evidence, yet they are arbitrarily demanding that a pedestrian provide proof of their innocence.

What if they applied "interest law," saying, "It's clear you were coveting that item in your heart. Prove you weren't greedy for it"?

Such nonsensical events are unfolding before our very eyes. The first-instance ruling on President Yoon Suk-yeol's case on the 19th is a prime example.

Is it possible to investigate a president, which is normally impossible?

First, Judge Ji Gwi-yeon presented the logic that "although investigating a president during their term is normally impossible, it is possible."

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea explicitly states the presidential immunity from prosecution. This immunity is the right of the head of state not to be subject to criminal prosecution (indictment) during their term, except for cases of rebellion or treason. It is a privilege that allows for the suspension of investigations and trials during their tenure to ensure the smooth performance of their duties.

According to Korean criminal law, for rebellion to be established, there must be an intent to dismember the territory or disrupt the constitutional order. In other words, there must be an act to paralyze constitutional institutions. Furthermore, an uprising with sufficient force to disturb the peace of a region must occur.

However, during the period of martial law, the National Assembly functioned properly without any disruption. Nor was there any uprising that could disturb the peace of any region. President Yoon was merely performing his presidential duties and never committed any act that could be called rebellion.

Nevertheless, Judge Ji stated, "Although the purpose of the non-prosecution privilege in our Constitution is to ensure the smooth performance of presidential duties, it does not appear to be intended to restrict all investigations unrelated to this purpose," implying that investigations themselves are not covered by the non-prosecution privilege.

What convoluted reasoning is this? Simply put, the judge is saying that an investigation into martial law is possible because it was unrelated to President Yoon's duties. This is absurd. The martial law of December 3rd was clearly an act carried out as part of President Yoon's duties during his term.

Yet, Judge Ji fabricated a nonsensical argument that the investigation into the president was for "matters unrelated to the performance of presidential duties."

Is it possible for the prosecution and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) to investigate rebellion, which is impossible?

Furthermore, Judge Ji acknowledged the investigative powers of the prosecution, stating, "According to the Prosecutors' Office Act, the prosecution can, in principle, initiate investigations only for the offense of abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights."

Historically, the prosecution's jurisdiction covered six major categories of crimes: △public officials, △elections, △defense industry, △major accidents, △corruption crimes (bribery, soliciting bribes, etc.), and △economic crimes (fraud, breach of trust, embezzlement, etc.). Recently, their investigative powers have been reduced to only those related to abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights concerning the two categories of 'corruption crimes' and 'economic crimes.'

It is absurd to frame the duties that a president is naturally expected to perform as abuse of power. Moreover, martial law did not even fall under the categories of corruption or economic crimes for which the prosecution's investigative powers are permitted.

Regarding the investigative powers of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), the judge also stated, "Based on the CIO Act, the CIO can, in principle, investigate only for the offense of abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights and does not have the authority to investigate rebellion by high-ranking officials, etc.," yet acknowledged the CIO's investigative authority by saying, "There is an exception where they have the authority to investigate crimes directly related to those discovered during an investigation."

The judge further concluded, "When the CIO accepts a complaint or report case that includes crimes for which the CIO does not have investigative authority among the enumerated offenses, it is concluded that the case must be transferred to the police, who have investigative authority," and reasoned, "If it does not hinder efficient investigation and investigative economy, and does not result in making the suspect's defense rights difficult, it is appropriate to recognize the CIO's investigative authority."

The public, who watched the trial with bated breath, initially thought, "Oh, not guilty?" but later experienced frustration due to Judge Ji's perplexing ruling, which contradicted itself.

How can it be said that the prosecution and the CIO have no investigative authority, yet they do? Isn't it truly suspicious and deserving of investigation that the CIO, which lacks the authority to investigate rebellion, pursued the president for rebellion?

The proverb, "Going smoothly and then veering off course," is fitting for the ruling delivered on the 19th.

Reporter Lim Yo-hee