Lawmakers say security footage shows Yoon resisted warrant in underwear

Rep. Kim Yong-min of the Democratic Party of Korea (third from left) speaks during a press briefing after the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee conducted an on-site investigation at the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province on Monday. (Yonhap)

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol resisted investigators’ arrest warrant execution by lying on the floor of his cell in only his underwear, a group of ruling party lawmakers said after conducting an on-site review of surveillance footage at the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province, Monday.

The inspection by ruling party members of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee was conducted to examine circumstances surrounding the attempted execution of the arrest warrant for former President Yoon in early August and to verify whether any coercive or illegal actions occurred during the warrant execution, as alleged by Yoon’s attorneys.

“The special counsel team did not violate any human rights or carry out the warrant execution in an excessive manner. The execution was made in accordance with the law with prior notice. But it failed due to Yoon Suk Yeol and his legal team’s unreasonable refusal and absurd arguments,” Rep. Kim Yong-min of the Democratic Party of Korea said during a press briefing after the investigation at the Seoul Detention Center on Monday afternoon.

Kim added that no excessive physical force had been exercised during the execution process.

Though Yoon’s legal team previously claimed that Yoon was injured after some 10 young investigators surrounded Yoon, who was seated in a chair, and attempted to lift him into a vehicle while he was still seated, Kim explained that the level of force used was no more than pulling the chair with wheels.

“We confirmed that Yoon deliberately sat down on the ground in an attempt to block the execution. Once the warrant execution was suspended, he stood up on his own and walked toward his attorneys,” Kim said, emphasizing that the committee confirmed Yoon and his attorney’s repeated acts of obstructing and resisting the exercise of public authority.

Yoon’s legal representatives lambasted the judiciary committee’s visit to the Seoul Detention Center.

“The Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee reviewed the CCTV (closed-circuit television) footage from the Seoul Detention Center, but this violates the Enforcement Decree of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act, the Official Information Disclosure Act and the Personal Information Protection Act,” the attorneys told reporters Monday.

“Examining the cameras, which were installed to ensure inmate safety and maintain order within the detention facility, for the purposes of verifying allegations of preferential treatment or obstruction of the investigation is a clear violation of the intent of the relevant laws,” they added.

The ruling Democratic Party-led judiciary committee passed a bill to review footage of the Seoul Detention Center’s surveillance cameras on Aug. 26.

But lawmakers were sharply divided over the matter.

Members of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea argued that revealing Yoon’s actions is necessary to uphold the rule of law and hold him accountable, while opposition People Power Party lawmakers contend that publicizing the footage would be a politically motivated attempt to humiliate the former president and gain an electoral advantage.

Justice Minister Jung said it is unlikely that the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the enforcement process involving a former president of the country will be made public.

Meanwhile, the judiciary committee also confirmed that Yoon’s legal team made multiple visits to the detention center after working hours.

“I was informed that the nighttime visits require the detention center chief’s permission, and that the replaced former Seoul Detention Center head had granted permission for these visits in the past,” Kim said, explaining that Yoon had received preferential treatment during his two-month detention period.

Though the judiciary committee agreed not to publicize the footage, it is reportedly attempting to discuss it further to address questions on why the special counsel team was not able to exercise sufficient use of force for warrant execution when possible and necessary.