라벨이 legal controversy인 게시물 표시

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

이미지
🔍 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 Pr...

Yoon Suk-yeol Released: Prosecutors’ Decision Sparks Controversy

이미지
  A Judicial Precedent Under Scrutiny The recent decision by a South Korean court to cancel President Yoon Suk-yeol’s detention and release him has triggered intense public debate. However, what has fueled even greater controversy is the prosecution's choice to forgo an immediate appeal. The Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of the prosecution advocated for an appeal, but the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office overruled it, leading to Yoon’s release. Was this prosecutorial decision justified? This event raises serious questions about the independence of the prosecution and its legal standards. A Unprecedented Legal Shift: Court’s Decision to Cancel Detention The court’s decision significantly deviated from existing legal precedents. It adopted an unusual approach to calculating the detention period, using an ‘hour’ basis instead of the conventional ‘day’ standard. Specifically, the court ruled that the time spent in the pre-detention hearing should be excluded from the detention durat...