Kim Ho Joong Detention A Former Judge View

In May 2024, when I saw the news that a detention warrant had been issued for singer Kim Ho-joong, the perspective from my days as a chief judge handling warrant matters naturally came to mind. The case itself was not one in which a detention warrant would typically be issued immediately. Even so, the reason the outcome was detention is that the flow seen from outside the case and the flow seen from inside the case diverged step by step. This article organizes the general structure of the warrant system and the criteria for issuing detention warrants, and then organizes from an academic perspective how this case went off track step by step.

Article 12 of the Constitution sets out bodily liberty and the warrant principle. No one is to be arrested, detained, searched, or seized except by law, and warrants must be issued by a judge on the prosecutor's application. Article 12(4) of the Constitution provides the right to receive the assistance of counsel, and paragraph 5 provides the right to apply for review of the legality of detention.

The warrant principle is the last bulwark of liberty. Because the weight that bodily restraint imposes on a person's life is very great, layered procedural safeguards are in place at both the application and issuance stages of a warrant.

An arrest warrant must release the suspect if a detention warrant is not issued within 48 hours. A search-and-seizure warrant can be obtained without a warrant in urgent cases or for arrest in flagrante delicto, but a post-hoc warrant must be issued within 48 hours.

When a judge decides whether to issue a detention warrant, examination generally proceeds through the following three stages.

1. Reasonable proof of suspicion: whether a crime appears to exist and the suspect appears connected to it
2. Existence of grounds for detention: whether there are concerns of no fixed abode, evidence destruction, or flight
3. Necessity of detention: whether detention is truly necessary even if stages 1 and 2 are met

In addition, the following circumstances are generally considered together.

• Seriousness of the offense and public legal sentiment
• Risk of recidivism
• Concern of harm to victims or important witnesses
• Whether the case falls within exceptions to mandatory bail

This case combined drunk driving with a hit-and-run, but in the general sentencing flow it sits as follows.

• Simple drunk driving: generally fines on the first offense, suspended sentences on the second
• Drunk driving followed by flight (hit-and-run): depending on outcome, but in typical cases without fatalities, immediate detention is uncommon
• The Specific Aggravated Crimes Act's escape-causing-injury offense: lighter sentencing flow in non-fatal cases

Therefore, this case was not one in which a detention warrant would typically be issued immediately, as evaluated from the general perspective of a chief judge who handled such matters.

The flow toward detention in this case can be organized step by step as follows.

Step 1: Flight immediately after the accident

The flow of not stopping the vehicle right after the accident and leaving the scene. Had the vehicle been stopped, the victim checked, contact details exchanged, the insurer notified, and the police notified if necessary at this step, the weight of subsequent steps would likely have been very different.

Step 2: The manager's attempted self-surrender and damage to the dashcam memory

The flow of the manager attempting to surrender on the premise that he was the driver, along with the dashcam memory going missing, is also reported. These acts generally lead to separate criminal issues such as evidence destruction, harboring an offender, and obstruction of public duty by deceit. From the investigating authorities' perspective, these are decisive circumstances justifying applying for a detention warrant.

Step 3: Denial during the appearance interrogation

At the appearance interrogation stage, the flow of denying drunk driving itself is reported. However, in our environment where CCTV, dashcams, and movement-tracking materials are generally secured very broadly, denial that directly contradicts objective materials typically tends to invite the investigating authority's decision to "see this case through to the end."

Step 4: Application to reschedule the warrant examination hearing

This step is the heaviest signal from the perspective of the judge in charge of warrants. At the time the warrant was applied for, the most important procedure for the person was that warrant examination hearing. The flow of requesting to reschedule that procedure for reasons such as a concert and other commitments serves to amplify the judge's doubt about whether the gravity of the case has been sufficiently recognized by the person.

The discretion of investigating authorities is very broad. Decisions on how far to investigate, in what manner to indict, whether to apply for a warrant, and how to seek a sentence are all within the investigators' decision-making. For that reason, I generally recommend the following principles.

• Except for parts where you are 100 percent certain of innocence or justification, opt for proactive cooperation from the early investigation stage
• Do not pursue the case in an adversarial relationship with the investigating authorities
• Refine expressions of intent toward the investigating authorities with the assistance of counsel

These principles do not mean giving up your rights. They mean the typical flow that most effectively protects your rights.

I hold both the perspective of a chief judge who looked at cases from the bench and the perspective of a criminal defense attorney who handles cases. If I had been retained at the moment immediately following the accident in this matter, I would generally have recommended the following flow.

1. Immediate stop of the vehicle, victim check, and police notification right after the accident
2. Simultaneous contact with the insurer, agency, and counsel
3. Attempt at settlement with the victim
4. Statement preparation under counsel's guidance before appearance
5. Acknowledgment of drinking and acknowledgment of flight, appearing in the form of self-surrender

Had this flow proceeded, in many cases the matter would generally not have reached the detention-warrant application stage, or even if applied for, would not have been issued.

The message of this case, generalized, is as follows. In criminal cases, the outcome is generally swayed more by the flow immediately after the incident than by the weight of the case itself. The role of criminal defense counsel is not so much to speak in place of the client as to design at what stage the client expresses what intent in what tone.

If you or your family are standing at the entrance of a criminal case, before checking the weight of the case itself, I recommend a flow of organizing at which stage you will express what intent. Start a consultation by chat now can help you review the step-by-step flow of your case.

Q. Immediately after a drunk-driving accident, what should be prioritized? A. Stopping the vehicle, checking the victim, and notifying the insurer and police come first. Flight generally tends to greatly increase the weight of the case.

Q. At the warrant examination stage, how far does counsel's role extend? A. The core is arguing the grounds for and necessity of detention, presenting the person's circumstances and post-hoc assurance measures, and organizing the status of settlement with the victim. The most effective axis of contention differs by case.

Q. When the person wishes to self-surrender, why is counsel's assistance necessary? A. For the surrender itself to work to the person's advantage, the timing, wording, and scope of materials submitted at the time must be designed together. Generally, the recommended flow is to design this with counsel's assistance.

If you would like to organize at what stage your case is and which stage is most urgent, you can Start a consultation by chat now.

This article is general legal information written based on the above YouTube commentary by Attorney Yoon Ji-sang of Jonjae Law Firm.

Reviewing attorney: Attorney Yoon Ji-sang · Last reviewed: 2026-05-30

Disclaimer: This article is intended to provide general legal information and is not legal advice on the specific facts of any individual case. Even in similar matters, outcomes can vary depending on facts and evidence, so anyone with an actual dispute or in need of consultation must obtain individual advice from a specialized attorney.