After the motion to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol passed at the National Assembly on Saturday, questions linger as to how criminal investigations targeting Yoon will go forward, with the president currently booked on charges of insurrection, mutiny and abuse of power for his declaration of martial law on Dec. 3.

During Saturday’s plenary session, the motion to impeach Yoon passed with 204 lawmakers voting in favor of the motion, 85 voting against, three abstentions and eight invalid votes.

Though insurrection charges lift presidential immunity according to the Constitution, some experts stated that investigating and arresting Yoon may be difficult due to concerns regarding national prestige and the Secret Service.

According to Article 84 of the Constitution, a president in South Korea is immune to criminal prosecution while in office, except in cases of insurrection or crimes against external sovereignty. In Yoon’s case, given that insurrection charges are explicitly excluded from the scope of the non-prosecution privilege, Yoon can be investigated and prosecuted by law.

However, questions remain about the practical feasibility of this exception while Yoon is still in office.

Constitutional law professor Chang Young-soo from Korea University cited concerns regarding national prestige as another factor that could make it difficult to arrest or detain a sitting president.

“The intent of Article 84 is to prevent damaging national prestige by putting the head of state on criminal trial,” said Chang. “Yoon can be charged with insurrection crimes by a prosecutor and be brought to court for trial, but whether he’ll be arrested and detained for it is a different question, at least when he is still in office.”

Even if an impeachment bill passes, the suspension of powers does not equate to removal from office. Following Saturday’s result, Yoon is now stripped of his executive powers, but the Constitutional Court must decide within 180 days whether Yoon will be impeached.

As the Presidential Secret Service will continue to perform its duties with Yoon, it is also unclear whether conducting further investigations into the president will be possible. When investigative authorities attempted to raid the presidential office with a search and seizure warrant, the Secret Service cited the Criminal Procedure Act to prevent the raids. Instead, they agreed to submit related documents and materials to police later, though a date was not specified.

“Before former President Park Geun-hye was impeached, proper investigations could not be carried out as the Presidential Security Service blocked access. Whether the security will cooperate this time is crucial to take note of to see how investigations will unfold from here,” professor Cha Jin-a from Korea University's School of Law told The Korea Herald.

This isn’t the first time a sitting South Korean president faces the risk of being ousted.

In 2016, Park Geun-hye was impeached on allegations of corruption and abuse of power after her involvement in a massive corruption scandal involving her confidant Choi Soon-sil came into the spotlight.

Yet the way events have unfolded involving Park and Yoon so far in terms of their criminal investigations have differed.

For Yoon, criminal investigations surrounding him and other authoritative figures around him escalated quickly, as authorities launched a high-profile inquiry into the legality of Yoon’s martial law declaration, seen as a direct violation of democratic norms.

For Park, criminal investigations formally began after the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion in December 2016. Investigations regarding the corruption scandal unfolded over several months, as Park initially denied wrongdoings and resisted cooperation with authorities.

In a rare move against a sitting president, Yoon was placed under a travel ban on Monday. On the same day, police officials stated their determination to conduct investigations in a strict manner -- even if it involves the president -- stating that they will place “no limitations on the scope of the investigation” regarding the incident.