image text translation
Newsis
PicKO
Court dismisses ‘objection to execution of national arrest warrant’… “Warrant is legal – favorable” (Jong
bout)
Entered 2025.01.05 Oru 4.33
Edited 2025.01.05 Ohmu 4.39
article verse
Reporter Lee Teo-seong
all)
gaga
[
;#”Only requests for arrest or detention are possible during the investigation stage before filing a charge.”
“It is illegal to contest detention and seizure before the arrest warrant is executed.”
“It is not illegal to include the crime of rebellion in the crimes related to abuse of power, including the Corruption Investigation Agency Act.”
“There is no problem under Article 31 of the Corruption Investigation Agency Act in filing a claim at the Western District Court instead of the Central District Court.”
.
Specifically, “It appears that the charges in the search warrant in this case include not only charges of treason but also charges of abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights,” and “This is a crime included in the Corruption Investigation Office Act, and treason related to it is included in the charges.” “It cannot be said to be illegal.”
In addition, based on the Corruption Investigation Office Act, it was determined that it was legal for the Corruption Investigation Office prosecutor to request an arrest warrant and search warrant from the Seoul Western District Court, which has jurisdiction over the location of the President’s Office and the President’s official residence.
According to Article 31 of the Corruption Investigation Office Act, the first trial of a high-ranking public official crime case filed by a prosecutor of the Investigation Office is under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Court, but considering the location of the crime, the location of evidence, and the special circumstances of the defendant, the prosecutor of the Investigation Office shall proceed in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act. It is stipulated that a prosecution can be filed in the competent court.
Regarding the statement to the effect that ‘Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act do not apply’ in the warrant at the time the warrant was issued, “This appears to have been written in the sense of confirming the court’s opinion, and this is within the scope of the jurisdiction of interpreting the law.” “It is an act, and cannot be considered an unconstitutional act that infringes on legislative authority.”
https://n.news.naver.com/article/003/0012998667