생성형AI로 제작
The Legal Acrobatics of President Yoon’s Defense Team
In legal terms, a “legal acrobat” or “technical manipulator” refers to someone who stretches the bounds of existing laws to their limit through clever interpretation. However, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s defense team seems to operate on an entirely different plane—offering arguments that not only lack precedent but directly contradict established legal statutes and case law. Alarmingly, they appear genuinely convinced of their assertions. It’s difficult to interpret their behavior as anything but irrational.
Let’s dissect some of their most baffling claims regarding the arrest warrant:
1. Objections to the Arrest Warrant in the Seoul Western District Court
[Seoul Western District Court’s Dismissal Ruling] The Criminal Procedure Act does not provide for an objection system regarding arrest warrants. Such disputes may only be addressed through detention review procedures after an arrest or detention.
[Author’s Interpretation] This case should have been outright dismissed by the Seoul Western District Court. However, in a gesture of respect for President Yoon and to avoid unnecessary chaos, the court issued a detailed ruling rejecting each of the defense team’s arguments.
2. Claim to Appeal the Dismissal Ruling to the Supreme Court
[Author’s Interpretation] If objections to arrest warrants are not legally recognized, neither are appeals. By extension, a “re-appeal” is similarly non-existent. This is akin to claiming a biological grandson exists without having had a son.
3. Assertion That the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) Has No Authority to Investigate Insurrection
[Seoul Western District Court’s Dismissal Ruling] The CIO Act explicitly grants investigative authority over abuse of power. Related crimes, such as insurrection, also fall under its jurisdiction. This is unambiguously stated in the statute.
4. Argument That the Seoul Western District Court Has No Jurisdiction Over the Warrant
[Seoul Western District Court’s Dismissal Ruling] The CIO Act designates the Seoul Central District Court and other courts with jurisdiction over the crime scene. Since the crime scene includes the Yongsan Presidential Office, the Seoul Western District Court has clear jurisdiction.
5. Claim That the Judge’s Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act Constitutes Illegal Legislation
[Seoul Western District Court’s Dismissal Ruling] The judge interpreted the Criminal Procedure Act rather than engaging in legislative activity. Specifically, the Act’s provisions (Articles 110 and 111) protect military or official secrets only in locations or documents directly related to such secrets. By this interpretation, areas unrelated to classified information—such as private bedrooms or dining facilities—are not exempt from searches. This is a judicial interpretation, not lawmaking.
6. Accusation That the Judge Defending the Arrest Warrant Is Acting Extrajudicially
[Author’s Interpretation] The absurdity of this claim is staggering. One wonders if these are indeed professional attorneys. Such statements border on delusional.
7. Claim That the Dismissal Ruling Does Not Validate the Arrest Warrant’s Legality
[Author’s Interpretation] The court explicitly stated that the arrest warrant complies with the Criminal Procedure Act and that the objection itself was invalid. How does one interpret this as anything but affirmation of the warrant’s legality?
8. Proposal to Avoid Arrest Through Indictment in the Seoul Central District Court
[Author’s Interpretation] This reveals a transparent attempt to avoid detention while prolonging proceedings and manipulating public opinion. No criminal defendant can dictate the court or jurisdiction handling their case. President Yoon, as a former prosecutor, never allowed defendants such privileges. Moreover, seeking an indictment without prior arrest or interrogation is unlikely, as the Seoul Central District Court would dismiss such a case due to a lack of direct investigative evidence.
9. Resistance to Arrest Constitutes Rebellion
[Author’s Interpretation] Refusing to comply with a court-issued warrant and mobilizing security forces in defiance constitutes rebellion. President Yoon’s defense team, much like their client, exhibits a disturbingly biased and delusional perspective.
10. Assertion That Removing Insurrection from the Impeachment Bill Is Fraudulent
[Constitutional Judge’s Interpretation] Whether to retain or remove insurrection charges is a matter of legal judgment, which is the Constitutional Court’s role to determine. There is no cause for undue concern.
[Author’s Observation] Interestingly, Rep. Kweon Seong-dong’s remarks during President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment in 2016 remain pertinent. Kweon clearly articulated that omitting criminal charges while maintaining the core facts poses no legal issue.
11. Claim That Martial Law Was Declared Without Sedition
[Constitutional Judge’s Interpretation] The relevant facts include the declaration of martial law, issuance of martial law decrees, and military incursions into the National Assembly and election commission. These are the Constitutional Court’s focus, not whether insurrection occurred.
12. Argument That Martial Law Is Beyond Judicial Review
[Constitutional Court’s Precedent] While martial law may be a governing act, it is subject to judicial review if it infringes on citizens’ rights or violates constitutional law. President Yoon appears to place himself above the Constitution.
This bizarre series of legal gymnastics not only undermines the legal process but also raises serious questions about the reasoning of President Yoon’s defense team. Perhaps the problem lies not in their strategy but in their perception of reality.