Prosecution rebuked after court rejects arrest warrant for Choo Kyung-ho

If the governing party continues to pressure the judiciary through legislation with constitutional flaws, it risks undermining the rule of law it claims to defend.

People Power Party Rep. Choo Kyung-ho speaks to reporters as he leaves the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi, on Dec. 3 after a court dismissed his arrest warrant request. [YONHAP]

Choo Kyung-ho, a People Power Party (PPP) lawmaker and former floor leader accused of participating in a key mission of an attempted insurrection, will stand trial without detention. Early on Dec. 3, 2024, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the arrest warrant sought by Special Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok’s team. The court said the charges and legal interpretation required full arguments in a trial and that a decision on whether Choo’s movements on Dec. 3 last year — when he repeatedly changed meeting venues ahead of the National Assembly vote on lifting martial law — amounted to aiding an insurrection should be settled in court. Prosecutors must reflect on whether the warrant request was overly aggressive. When there is no risk of flight or evidence destruction, trial without detention is a guiding principle of Korea’s Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act.

Soon after the ruling, the Democratic Party (DP) leadership launched an unusually fierce attack on the judiciary. DP leader Jung Chung-rae called the decision “a second insurrection and a judicial coup” and claimed history would record former President Yoon Suk Yeol and the judiciary under Chief Justice Jo Hee-de as acting in concert. Yet arrest decisions belong to the courts, not political leaders threatening judges. The governing party may resent the outcome after having led the vote approving Choo’s arrest motion, but its disregard for judicial independence and basic respect for the courts warrants criticism. Portraying the entire judiciary as defending insurrection is a direct challenge to the separation of powers.

The opposition’s reaction was no better. PPP leader Jang Dong-hyeok welcomed the court’s finding as if Choo had been acquitted, saying it marked “the end of the dark chapter of martial law and impeachment-driven insurrection narratives.” But the court ruled only on detention, not guilt. It simply decided Choo should remain free to prepare his defense.

Amid the fallout, DP Supreme Council member Lee Un-ju argued that Choo’s case should move to a newly created insurrection tribunal to ensure a fast-track ruling. Such remarks ignore the Constitution’s guarantee of judicial independence. The DP also introduced three bills to dissolve the Court Administration Office and establish a new judicial governance body. Critics argue the proposal conflicts with the Constitution, which states that judges are appointed by the chief justice with the consent of the Council of Justices. If the governing party continues to pressure the judiciary through legislation with constitutional flaws, it risks undermining the rule of law it claims to defend.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.