By Hyonhee Shin

SEOUL (Reuters) – South Korean investigators arrested impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol on Wednesday for allegedly rebelling against his bid to impose martial law, after weeks of protests and admissions by Yoon and his lawyers that the warrant of arrest is invalid.

Here’s what we know about his arrest so far:

WHY WAS YOON ARRESTED?

Yoon’s arrest stems from his brief imposition of martial law on Dec. 3, which shocked South Koreans as he declared on national television his goal to eliminate “anti-state forces” and to overcome the political divide.

But after about six hours, he abandoned the plan after parliament staff used barricades and fire extinguishers to stop soldiers trying to prevent lawmakers from voting to reject Yoon’s declaration.

Parliament voted to impeach Yoon on December 14 and a Constitutional Court trial was launched to decide his political future, but investigators also launched a criminal investigation into the insurrection allegations.

This is one of the few criminal cases in which the South Korean president does not have immunity and when Yoon ignored summons for questioning, the court approved an arrest warrant on December 31, which was later extended.

An initial attempt to arrest him was thwarted by presidential guards at his hillside villa before he was taken into custody on Wednesday.

WHO ARE THE INVESTIGATORS?

The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) is leading a joint investigation team involving the police and the defense ministry, while prosecutors are also conducting their own investigation.

The CIO was launched in 2021 as an independent anti-graft agency to investigate high-ranking officials, including the president, and their family members.

But its powers to investigate and prosecute are limited. It does not have the authority to prosecute the president and is required to refer the case to the prosecutor’s office to take any action, including indictment, once the inquiry is complete.

Investigators now have 48 hours to question Yoon, before seeking a warrant to detain him for up to 20 days or release him.

WHAT IS YOON’S ARGUMENT?

Yoon said on Wednesday that he submitted himself for questioning to avoid any bloodshed despite what he called the illegal investigation and arrest.

Yoon’s lawyers say that unlike prosecutors, the CIO does not have the authority to handle his case because the law stipulates an extensive list of high-ranking officials and the offenses that can be committed. this will be investigated, but there is no mention of the insurrection.

The lawyers also said that the arrest warrant was unconstitutional because it was issued by a court of wrong jurisdiction.

They said any criminal investigation should be conducted after the Constitutional Court hears Yoon’s impeachment and decides whether to remove him from office permanently.

Yoon’s team filed a complaint and injunction with the Constitutional Court to review the legitimacy of the warrant.

WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE CIO, POLICE?

The CIO said it had obtained the rights to deal with Yoon’s case by obtaining an arrest warrant, but apologized for failing to arrest Yoon and asked the police to take over the execution of the warrant.

Before Yoon’s arrest, the police acknowledged that there was a legal dispute in the case but held several meetings with the CIO to discuss how to execute the warrant after obtaining a re-issued arrest warrant on January 7.

Seok Dong-hyeon, Yoon’s legal adviser, said the move to transfer the execution of the warrant to the police was effectively the CIO’s admission that its investigation and the warrant were “illegal”.

WHAT DO THE COURTS SAY?

The Constitutional Court said on Monday it was reviewing the complaint and order filed by Yoon’s lawyers.

The Seoul Western District Court, which dismissed a similar complaint earlier, said it was not illegal for the CIO to handle Yoon’s case because the allegations of insurrection were included in the abuse of power cases covered by the agency. .

Yoon’s lawyers criticized the court’s statement as “sophistry” and said they would consider appealing the decision to a higher court.