S. Korean prosecutors file request to extend Yoon's detention period

Welcome to Within The Frame, where we bring you today's most pressing issues from across the globe, I'm Kim Mok-yeon.

South Korean prosecutors filed for an extension of the arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol on Friday, as they seek to speed up the investigation into his short-lived martial law declaration.

This request, submitted to the Seoul Central District Court, could keep Yoon in detention until February 6th, pending approval.

The move follows the transfer of the case from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials to the prosecution, as the agency lacks the authority to indict a sitting president.

With a potential in-person interrogation on the horizon, questions remain about President Yoon's cooperation and the implications of the unfolding legal battle.

For more on this, we invite Cho Hee-kyung, Professor of Law at Hongik University.

Also joining us is Lee Hee-eun, Dean and Professor of Law at Handong International Law School. Great to have you.

(Lee) 1. So today, prosecutors applied for an extension to keep President Yoon detained for longer. Professor Lee, Could you explain what the procedure is? Is there a possibility that the court may deny the extension?

(Cho) 2. If the court grants the extension, the expected end of the detention period is until the 6th of next month. In this case President Yoon will be interrogated while still in detention. Professor Cho, if this scenario proceeds as planned, when can we expect a trial verdict?

(Lee) 3. So the latest development came as the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials sent the insurrection case to the prosecution and requested an indictment. Professor Lee, what do you think is the reason behind this early transmission decision?

(Cho) 4. Then Professor Cho, we are aware that that President Yoon has continually refused to cooperate with the CIO's investigation, will he comply with the prosecution's investigation this time? Reports indicate that the prosecution is focusing on a plan to visit him at the detention center rather than summoning him to the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office. What do you think is the reason for this approach?

(Cho) 5. In the meantime, President Yoon's side issued a stern warning, stating, "We will hold the CIO legally accountable for its unlawful investigation and illegal actions." What does the legal responsibility mentioned by President Yoon's side imply? Professor Cho

(Cho) 6. Now let's take a look at the 4th trial session held on Thursday. The first witness, former Minister of Defense Kim Yong-hyun's face-to-face encounter with President Yoon has garnered much attention. There was no partition between President Yoon and Former Minister Kim. How would you generally assess the testimonies made?

(Lee) 7. How about you Professor Lee? What were your takeaways from yesterday's session?

(Lee) 8. A battle of truth between President Yoon and former Minister Kim was expected to unfold. However, during the witness testimony on that day, Former Minister Kim accepted the claims of President Yoon's side and took sole responsibility for the state of emergency. Professor Lee, so based on his statement that he personally wrote the proclamation and that President Yoon did not thoroughly review it, can it be interpreted that he essentially led the planning and execution of the state of emergency?

(Cho) 9. Former Minister Kim has consistently defended President Yoon, even while in detention, and did so again during his testimony yesterday. Professor Cho, why do you think this is the case?