Lawyer Kwon Woo-hyun [Yonhap News TV capture]

The court dismissed the arrest warrant sought by the prosecution against a lawyer who rebuked the judiciary in court, asking, "Is this the judiciary?" Legal circles are interpreting this as a legal judgment that implicitly acknowledges the judiciary is not functioning normally, as the court itself has partially substantiated this in its legal decision.

The defense lawyer for Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, whose arrest warrant was sought based on an one-sided claim of creating a disturbance in court, has avoided detention due to the court's dismissal of the warrant.

According to legal circles on the 21st, Judge Lee Ji-young, presiding over arrest warrant hearings at the Seoul Central District Court, dismissed the arrest warrant for lawyer Kwon Oh-hyun after conducting a suspect interrogation prior to arrest (warrant examination) the previous day.

Judge Lee stated the reasons for dismissal as: "Considering the suspect's residence, family and social ties, evidence collected to date, and their demeanor during the interrogation, there is insufficient substantiation of the necessity or grounds for detention at this stage," the court announced to the media.

Lawyer Kwon was sought for arrest on the grounds that he did not comply with the court's order to withdraw during the trial of former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo's rebellion case last November, and instead raised concerns about the erosion of the judiciary's credibility by shouting in court, "Is this the judiciary of the Republic of Korea?"

The prosecution had presented the grounds for seeking the warrant after reviewing the police's application, arguing that Lawyer Kwon's statements and actions at the time exceeded the scope of the right to defense and posed a significant risk of undermining the entire judicial system.

However, the court dismissed the arrest warrant in the early hours of the morning, stating there were no grounds, and Lawyer Kwon, who had been awaiting the warrant's issuance, was immediately released.

Some within the legal community are interpreting this as a legal judgment that suggests the judiciary needs to engage in self-reflective consideration, especially given the ongoing criticisms of the judiciary's abnormal proceedings, overreach, and abuse of power, which have been seen as bordering on paralysis.

Hanmiilbo Social Affairs Desk