Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung is taking questions from reporters on his way to work at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seoul on March 13. Reporter Moon Jae-won

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office has decided not to appeal the decision of the first trial court to revoke the detention of President Yoon Suk-yeol in the case of his martial law declaration. In a statement issued on March 13, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office said, "The prosecution's position remains unchanged."

Even Chun Dae-yup, chief of the National Court Administration, who appeared before the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on behalf of the Supreme Court the day before, said, “It seems that the trial court made a judgment that is somewhat different from our practice. We believe that it is necessary to be judged by a higher court through an immediate appeal,"” but in the end, they decided to crush it. It seems that the prosecution determined to be a shield for Yoon regardless of the confusion in the criminal justice system.

The reason why the Supreme Court felt it necessary to seek an appellate review was that the court's decision to cancel Yoon's detention by calculating the detention period in “hours” was contrary to its practice and prevailing opinions. Chun said, “It is judged that the first trial court adopted the most procedurally stringent position among the different schools of thought.” At best, it is only a minority view. Moreover, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office has issued a directive to prosecutors' offices nationwide to use “day” as the standard. This is likely to lead to chaos in the practice of setting a detention period, with different judgments by different courts and different standards by courts and prosecutors. The Supreme Court should have provided a unified standard through precedents, but the prosecution’s unilateral abandonment of the appeal blocked the opportunity.

On the same day, the Constitutional Court repeated its claim that an immediate appeal was unconstitutional. However, the Constitutional Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of an immediate appeal against a decision to revoke detention, only against a decision to grant bail and suspend execution of confinement. Since when did prosecutors abdicate their authority by presuming the Constitutional Court's judgment? It is arrogant for the prosecution to assume and conclude the constitutionality of a decision that should be decided by the Constitutional Court. There is even no unconstitutional reason for an immediate appeal as Yoon has been released. It also contradicts the position of the Ministry of Justice and Prosecution that prosecutors’ right to immediately appeal the decision to cancel the detention is not unconstitutional. In all respects, it can only be said that it is a fabricated method to release Yoon.

Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung dragged on the timing of the Yoon's indictment and provided an excuse for the decision to cancel his arrest. Then, as if waiting for the court's decision to revoke his detention, Shim released Yoon. The prosecutor general was given the opportunity to immediately appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but he squandered that opportunity. It seems that Shim sees only Yoon's human rights, not the common sense of many citizens who are losing sleep over the stress of the insurgence and the chaos in the criminal justice system. Shim, who has turned prosecutors who are supposed to represent the public interest into Yoon's spokesmen, no longer deserves to be in his position. He should resign immediately.