Yoon Suk-yeol's Detention Review Rejected After 5-Hour Hearing - Health Claims Dismissed by Seoul Court

Breaking: Seoul Court Rejects Yoon's Detention Appeal

The political drama surrounding former President Yoon Suk-yeol took another dramatic turn as the Seoul Central District Court firmly rejected his petition for release on July 18, 2025. After a grueling 5-hour closed-door hearing that began at 10:15 AM and concluded at 4:15 PM, the three-judge panel delivered a decisive blow to Yoon's hopes of regaining freedom while facing serious charges related to his failed martial law attempt.

The hearing, presided over by Chief Judge Ryu Chang-seong along with Judges Jung Hye-won and Choi Bo-won, saw intense legal arguments from both sides. Yoon's defense team, led by prominent attorneys including Yoo Jeong-hwa, Song Jin-ho, and Choi Ji-woo, presented a comprehensive 140-slide PowerPoint presentation arguing that the new charges were essentially identical to earlier insurrection charges, thus violating legal limits on re-detention. However, their efforts proved unsuccessful as the court stated: "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 Health Card: Yoon's Desperate Plea for Freedom

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Friday's hearing was Yoon's personal appearance and his direct plea to the court regarding his deteriorating health condition. For approximately 30 minutes, the former president spoke directly to the judges, describing his physical ailments in detail. His legal team submitted blood test results showing alarming changes in his liver function, claiming his liver enzyme levels had increased more than five times from the normal range of around 60 IU/L before his arrest.

Yoon complained of severe dizziness, insomnia, and mobility issues, with his lawyers arguing that he was unable to follow his prescribed diabetes medication regimen and diet while in detention. The defense painted a picture of a man whose health was rapidly declining under the stress of imprisonment. However, critics, including Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Han-kyu, dismissed these claims, suggesting that elevated liver levels might be alcohol-related rather than stress-induced. The special counsel team countered these health arguments by presenting medical documentation from the Seoul Detention Center indicating no observed mobility issues.

Legal Battle: Defense vs. Prosecution Arguments

The courtroom became a battlefield of legal arguments as both sides presented their cases with remarkable intensity. Yoon's defense team argued vehemently that their client posed no flight risk and that the charges against him were baseless. They emphasized that the five key charges listed in the arrest warrant - including alleged violations of Cabinet members' rights and creation of false martial law documents - were already covered under the existing insurrection charge.

On the opposing side, the special counsel team led by Cho Eun-suk presented an equally robust argument. Assistant special counsel Park Eok-su, senior prosecutor Cho Jae-cheol, and three other prosecutors delivered their own detailed presentation, insisting that concerns over evidence destruction justified keeping Yoon in custody. The prosecution team emphasized the gravity of the charges and Yoon's continued refusal to cooperate with the investigation, including his boycott of trial hearings unless the special counsel team was removed from the courtroom.

The Martial Law Saga: Understanding the Charges

To understand the significance of this detention review, one must grasp the extraordinary events of December 3, 2024, when Yoon briefly imposed martial law on South Korea. This unprecedented move, which lasted only hours before being overturned by the National Assembly, has been characterized by prosecutors as an attempted insurrection aimed at consolidating power and detaining political adversaries.

The charges against Yoon are multifaceted and serious. He faces allegations of insurrection, abuse of power, obstruction of official duties, and document forgery. At the heart of these accusations is the claim that Yoon ordered military and police forces to prevent lawmakers from entering the National Assembly building to vote against his martial law declaration. The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials has been conducting an intensive investigation, preparing over 200 pages of questions for their interrogations.

Public and Political Reactions: A Nation Divided

The detention review hearing has sparked intense debate across South Korean society, with public opinion sharply divided along political lines. Yoon's supporters view the proceedings as a political witch hunt, arguing that the former president is being unfairly persecuted for his actions during a national crisis. They point to his health concerns and argue that detention is unnecessary given his status and lack of flight risk.

Critics, however, see the court's decision as appropriate given the severity of the charges and Yoon's lack of cooperation with investigators. Many Korean netizens on platforms like Naver and Daum have expressed skepticism about Yoon's health claims, with some viewing them as a strategic ploy to avoid accountability. The political implications are enormous, as this case represents the first time in South Korean history that a former president has been detained on insurrection charges.

International Implications and South Korea's Democratic Resilience

For international observers, particularly those familiar with South Korea's tumultuous political history, Yoon's case represents both a test of the country's democratic institutions and a reminder of its complex relationship with authoritarian tendencies. The martial law attempt recalled dark chapters from South Korea's past when military rulers used emergency powers to suppress opposition.

However, the swift rejection of martial law by the National Assembly and the subsequent legal proceedings demonstrate the strength of South Korea's democratic institutions. Foreign governments and international media have closely watched these developments, viewing them as indicative of South Korea's commitment to the rule of law. The case has also highlighted the country's robust system of checks and balances, where even a sitting president cannot escape accountability for unconstitutional actions.

What's Next: The Road Ahead for Yoon and South Korea

With the court's rejection of his detention review, Yoon remains in custody at the Seoul Detention Center, where he has been held since July 10, 2025. This marks his second stint in detention, having been previously arrested in January but released in March when a court initially ruled against his continued detention. The current situation appears more precarious for the former president, as the special counsel team has built a more comprehensive case against him.

Yoon's refusal to cooperate with investigators, including his boycott of trial proceedings, has not helped his cause. He has consistently maintained his innocence and characterized the investigations as politically motivated attacks on his presidency. However, with limited options for appeal and mounting evidence against him, Yoon faces the very real possibility of remaining in detention throughout his trial proceedings. The case continues to captivate South Korean society and serves as a defining moment for the country's young democracy, demonstrating that no one, regardless of their former position, is above the law.