Is "Immediate Appeal After Release" Unconstitutional? Examining Supreme Court Precedents

---

🔍 Supreme Court Precedents: No Mention of Unconstitutionality in Immediate Appeals

In May 2023, the South Korean Supreme Court’s Second Division reviewed a case concerning a re-appeal filed by prosecutors against the Daejeon District Court’s decision to grant a release request.

The Supreme Court ruled, “Upon reviewing the reasons for the re-appeal, we find no violation of the Constitution, laws, orders, or regulations.” In other words, even though the prosecution had filed an immediate appeal after releasing the defendant, the Supreme Court did not raise any constitutional concerns regarding this practice.

This case originated in November 2022 when the Daejeon District Court, on its own authority, ordered a release. The prosecution complied by releasing the defendant but simultaneously filed an immediate appeal. This precedent contradicts the current prosecution’s argument that “immediate appeal after release is unconstitutional.”

---

⚖️ Prosecution’s Argument vs. Supreme Court Precedent

The prosecution now asserts that "immediate appeal against a release decision is constitutionally questionable." They reference past cases where immediate appeals against bail or suspension of detention were deemed unconstitutional.

However, the Constitutional Court clarified in its 2012 ruling on the unconstitutionality of immediate appeals against detention suspension that "Suspension of detention only halts its execution without affecting its validity, which fundamentally differs from release orders." This distinction suggests that release orders and suspension of detention are not legally identical, making it inappropriate to apply the same constitutional interpretation.

Despite this clarification, prosecutors argue that "previous interpretations of the law were incorrect." However, given that the Supreme Court did not raise any issues with immediate appeals in the past, this claim appears contradictory.

---

📢 Legal Experts Weigh In

Legal scholars and professionals are also questioning the prosecution’s stance:

Professor Cha Seong-An (University of Seoul Law School): “If the Supreme Court has never ruled immediate appeal after release as unlawful, then prosecutors must follow consistent legal procedures.”

Justice Cheon Dae-Yeop (Supreme Court Justice and Court Administration Head): “Prosecutors should reconsider their decision to waive immediate appeals in some cases while pursuing them in others. It is essential to obtain a higher court's judgment on this matter.”

Legal experts emphasize the need for consistent application of legal procedures rather than selective use of immediate appeals based on specific cases.

---

🚨 What Lies Ahead in the Immediate Appeal Controversy?

This debate extends beyond the case of President Yoon Suk-Yeol’s release. It highlights the broader question of the legal validity of immediate appeals.

Key Considerations:

1. The Supreme Court has never ruled that immediate appeal after release is unconstitutional.
2. The Constitutional Court has explicitly distinguished release orders from suspension of detention.

Given these factors, whether the prosecution’s current argument will hold up in court remains uncertain.

This issue may prompt a re-evaluation of South Korea’s immediate appeal system, potentially leading to legal reforms that clarify its scope and application.