- California Assembly OKs highest minimum wage in nation
- S. Korea unveils first graphic cigarette warnings
- US joins with South Korea, Japan in bid to deter North Korea
- LPGA golfer Chun In-gee finally back in action
- S. Korea won’t be top seed in final World Cup qualification round
- US men’s soccer misses 2nd straight Olympics
- US back on track in qualifying with 4-0 win over Guatemala
- High-intensity workout injuries spawn cottage industry
- CDC expands range of Zika mosquitoes into parts of Northeast
- Who knew? ‘The Walking Dead’ is helping families connect
Court issues new arrest warrant for ex-defense minister in martial law case
A Seoul court on Wednesday approved the extended detention of former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun over his alleged role in former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law declaration.
The Seoul Central District Court granted the warrant following a hearing, after Special Counsel Cho Eun-suk sought the arrest by indicting Kim on new charges of obstructing official duties and abetting the destruction of evidence in connection with the martial law case.
Kim is already in custody and on trial for insurrection-related charges but was set for release on Thursday with the expiration of his initial six-month detention period.
The court cited concerns over Kim’s risk of evidence destruction in issuing the new warrant.
The court had approved bail earlier this month under certain conditions, but Kim refused to accept the terms and chose to remain in custody. In response, the special counsel filed additional charges and sought the new warrant.

During the hearing earlier in the day, Kim engaged in a back-and-forth with the court by repeatedly seeking the recusals of judges overseeing his martial law case in response to the court’s dismissals of the requests.
His lawyers had filed for the judges’ recusal in an apparent bid to prevent another arrest but the court dismissed the request Tuesday after deeming it a ploy to delay proceedings.
“If this is the decision of the bench, then we will again request recusal,” one lawyer said during Wednesday’s hearing.
“The unjust dismissal decision goes against justice as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code,” the lawyer added, noting that in order to dismiss the recusal request, “its aim has to be delaying proceedings, but the proceedings in this case have not yet started.”
As the bench proceeded with the hearing, rejecting the recusal requests every time, the lawyers protested by calling it “illegal.”