0
Former President Yoon Suk-yeol arrives at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho District, Seoul, on July 9 to attend a pre-trial detention hearing. / Photo: Press pool

Former President Yoon Suk-yeol was taken back into custody on July 10, just four months after his release, as the court issued a new arrest warrant citing concerns over potential evidence tampering.

Nam Se-jin, a senior judge in charge of warrants at the Seoul Central District Court, granted the special counsel’s request for Yoon’s arrest, stating, "There is concern that evidence may be destroyed." Yoon was initially released on March 8 after his previous arrest warrant was revoked by the court. The decision gives new momentum to the rebellion-related investigation led by Special Counsel Cho Eun-seok’s team.

Yoon, who had been awaiting the court’s decision in a holding cell at the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi Province, is now expected to be confined in a solitary cell measuring approximately 3 square meters. Following the court’s ruling, the Presidential Security Service will also cease providing protective detail to the former president.

The special counsel team and Yoon’s attorneys clashed the previous day during a pre-trial detention hearing. Prosecutors, led by Deputy Special Prosecutors Park Eok-soo and Jang Woo-sung, presented a 178-page dossier and written opinions justifying the need for Yoon’s detention. A total of 10 prosecutors participated in the session.

In response, Yoon's legal team, headed by attorney Kim Hong-il and including six other lawyers, submitted a 167-slide PowerPoint presentation and a 68-page written rebuttal. Yoon himself gave a 20-minute statement in his defense.

After the hearing, Yoon’s attorneys criticized the proceedings, saying, "The special counsel failed to conduct proper legal review even for the individual charges listed in the arrest warrant. The alleged facts are clearly contradicted by existing evidence. This shows the investigation is politically driven and fundamentally flawed."

Despite those arguments, the court sided with the special counsel. It appears the judge determined that the charges were sufficiently substantiated by witness testimony and evidence submitted by the investigation team.