Legality of executing an arrest warrant while in custody, violation of the right to consult with legal counsel, controversy over privacy filming... Special prosecutor's investigation marred by procedural flaws

In a statement released on the 4th, the legal team for former President Yoon Suk-yeol strongly refuted the special prosecutor and the Minister of Justice's dissemination of false information regarding "resistance in underwear." The legal team raised issues with the procedure of executing an arrest warrant while in custody, the violation of the right to consult with legal counsel, and the filming of private moments, stating, "We will hold them legally accountable if this recurs."

According to the statement, the special prosecutor's team arrived around 9 a.m. on the 2nd to execute an arrest warrant while former President Yoon was waiting in prison attire to meet with his lawyer. Former President Yoon stated, "I will comply after consulting with my lawyer," but the special prosecutor refused to consult with the lawyer, citing "non-submission of the power of attorney." Subsequently, after the special prosecutor withdrew, they attempted to arrest him again while he had briefly removed his prison attire due to the hot weather. Former President Yoon covered himself with a blanket and requested to see his lawyer, but his request was ultimately denied. The legal team alleges that the special prosecutor's team filmed this situation and subsequently announced it as "resistance in underwear."

■ Violation of the Right to Consult with Legal Counsel

Article 12, Section 4 of the Constitution and Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act guarantee the right of an accused to legal counsel. The Supreme Court also recognizes the right to consult with individuals who intend to become legal counsel (Supreme Court Decision 2004Mo94). The special prosecutor's refusal to allow consultation, citing the non-submission of the power of attorney, is highly likely to be a violation of judicial precedent.

■ Illegality of Executing an Arrest Warrant While in Custody

The Supreme Court's Decision 2002Mo52 explicitly states that executing an arrest warrant for a suspect already in detention is "in principle unnecessary." Executing it without exceptional grounds constitutes a violation of the principle of proportionality under Article 12 of the Constitution.

■ Invasion of Privacy and Dissemination of False Information

The act of filming a suspect in underwear against their will may be a violation of Article 17 of the Constitution and the Personal Information Protection Act. Furthermore, if the special prosecutor's announcement of "resistance in underwear" is false, it could constitute defamation through the dissemination of false information under Articles 307 and 309 of the Criminal Act.

■ Abuse of Power and Unlawful Arrest Potential

The refusal of legal consultation, the attempt at forced arrest, and the filming of private moments could fall under Articles 123 (Obstruction of Exercise of Rights by Abuse of Authority) and 124 (Unlawful Arrest and Detention) of the Criminal Act. The legal team also warned the Seoul Detention Center, stating, "We will hold legally responsible those who participate in unlawful arrests in similar situations in the future."

This controversy directly tests the political neutrality and legal legitimacy of the special prosecutor's office. Regardless of the gravity of the investigative agency's objectives, investigations that violate procedures lose their evidentiary value in court and also public trust. The case of former President Yoon will now inevitably be addressed on two fronts simultaneously: 'fact-finding' and 'procedural adherence.'

[Statement from the Legal Team of Former President Yoon Suk-yeol]

We express our deep regret towards the special prosecutor, who claimed that a former president "took off his clothes to resist arrest" and even mentioned specific details of his underwear, and towards the Minister of Justice, who repeatedly asserted this in the National Assembly without properly verifying the facts. We state that "we will seek appropriate legal responsibility if this recurs."

Around 9 a.m. on the 2nd, former President Yoon Suk-yeol was changing into prison attire and waiting to meet with his lawyer. However, the special prosecutor's team arrived and requested his compliance with an arrest for questioning. Former President Yoon stated that he would comply if he could consult with his lawyer, who was waiting. The special prosecutor, however, refused to consult with the lawyer, claiming that a power of attorney had not been submitted. Subsequently, the special prosecutor's team withdrew from former President Yoon's detention room, stating they would conduct their own deliberations.

Later, former President Yoon, believing that he would not be able to meet with his lawyer that morning, removed his prison attire briefly due to the heat. However, after a considerable time, the special prosecutor's team returned and requested his compliance with the arrest. Flustered by his state of undress, former President Yoon covered himself with a blanket and requested to consult with his lawyer, who was waiting in the consultation room. However, the special prosecutor vehemently avoided meeting with the lawyer, disregarded former President Yoon's request, and even arbitrarily filmed the awkward situation without legal grounds.

The special prosecutor's team presented the situation as if former President Yoon had resisted arrest by taking off his prison attire and appearing in his underwear, but this is not true. Even the Minister of Justice, had they verified the facts with the detention center guards on-site, would have known that the special prosecutor's statement was incorrect, but they merely echoed the special prosecutor's announcement, participating in the humiliation of a former president.

Furthermore, the right to consult with legal counsel is independent of the submission of a power of attorney and includes consultation with individuals who intend to become legal counsel, as well as the assistance of such individuals. The special prosecutor and the Seoul Detention Center violated the right to consult with legal counsel under the pretext of executing an arrest, which, according to court precedents, constitutes arrest by abuse of authority.

Therefore, we express our strong regret towards the special prosecutor, who attempted arrest by abuse of authority without adhering to due process, violated the right to legal consultation, and arbitrarily filmed a detainee against their will, and towards the special prosecutor and the Minister of Justice who disseminated false information.

We also inform the Seoul Detention Center that if they participate in abuse of authority and unlawful arrest in similar situations in the future, all involved individuals will be held legally responsible.

August 4, 2025

Legal Team of Former President Yoon Suk-yeol

Hashtags

#KoreaUSJapanExclusive #FormerPresidentYoonSukYeol #UnderwearResistanceControversy #ViolationOfRightToConsultCounsel #ArrestWarrantWhileInCustody #AbuseOfAuthority #UnlawfulArrest #InvasionOfPrivacy #Defamation #SpecialProsecutorFairness