Seoul High Court Upholds First Ruling on Lee Jae-myung's 'Use of Presidential Security Service as Private Troops'

The Seoul High Court has reaffirmed the first instance ruling that then-President Lee Jae-myung used the Presidential Security Service like his private troops to prevent the execution of an arrest warrant against him. The court found Lee's orders to the Presidential Security Service to display firearms and conduct power patrols constituted obstruction of official duties and abuse of power, upholding all charges.

This decision aligns with the circumstances on April 4th last month, when personnel from the Presidential Security Service physically blocked the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) from apprehending President Lee. At the time, Lee issued statements from his residence demanding the CIO investigation team retreat, claiming they were trespassing in a security zone.

Following the failed initial arrest attempt, testimony in court revealed that President Lee, during a lunch with Presidential Security Service executives, ordered them to display firearms and approved power patrols in preparation for a second arrest attempt. Yoon Sung-sik, the presiding judge of the Criminal Division 1 at the Seoul High Court, stated these orders were issued under the claim that the second arrest warrant was illegal.

The court ruled that President Lee's orders could not be seen as legitimate security measures. It determined that 'human scrum' formations and power patrols constituted using security service personnel as private troops, raising concerns of physical confrontation with CIO prosecutors, who are state officials. The court rejected the defense's argument that these actions were taken to prepare for protests by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.

The court also recognized the legality of the CIO's investigation and the Western District Court's issuance of the arrest warrant, emphasizing that regardless of any questions regarding investigative authority, the use of physical force to resist is impermissible under the rule of law. The court dismissed the defense's claim that abuse of power could not be established because President Lee's duties were suspended due to impeachment proceedings.