A court on Friday dismissed former President Yoon Suk Yeol's petition against his arrest, keeping him in custody over his failed attempt to impose martial law.
The Seoul Central District Court issued the ruling hours after concluding a hearing that reviewed the legality of Yoon's arrest and whether it should remain in place.
"Based on the results of our questioning of the suspect and the case records, it was recognized that the request was without reason and dismissed," the bench said.
The ousted president had filed for the review Wednesday, less than a week after he was placed under arrest at the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, just south of the capital, over five key charges related to his martial law bid in December.
The closed-door hearing at the court began at 10:15 a.m.
And ended around six hours later after Yoon's lawyers and special counsel Cho Eun-suk's team presented contrary arguments for and against his release.
Yoon's lawyers reportedly stressed that the criminal charges leveled against him cannot be supported and that he poses no risk of destroying evidence.
In particular, they sought to highlight that the five key charges the special counsel team listed on the arrest warrant -- including his alleged violation of the rights of Cabinet members and his alleged creation of a false martial law document -- were already covered under the insurrection charge for which Yoon is cu...
Yoon also spoke for 30 minutes about his deteriorating health.
"His liver is in really bad shape so he submitted the relevant materials and explained that he has difficulty moving," Yoo Jung-hwa, one of Yoon's lawyers, told reporters after the hearing.
The special counsel team, however, asserted the need to keep him in custody, saying the five charges could all be supported and classified as serious crimes.
Moreover, they cited concerns he could influence witness testimony or destroy evidence.
He was escorted straight into the holding cell in a transport vehicle, avoiding contact with the press.
He returned to the detention center after the hearing and will likely remain there for several more days, as the time the review was in process does not count toward the 10-day initial arrest period.
The political importance lies in whether the issue moves from public comment into formal action, party response, court record, election authority notice or administrative decision.
For public institutions and political groups, the next test is whether the issue remains a public argument or turns into a formal response, legal proceeding, administrative instruction or election-related communication.
