[Politics ON] "Penalty teacher D-3"...Yeo "incitement to the end" vs Lee Jae-myung "respecting the judiciary"

■ Host: Anchor Kim Youngsoo Kim
■ Appearance: Lawyer Yeo Sang-won, political commentator Kim Sang-il

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN NewsON] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Let's start <Politics On> looking at the outside and inside of politics. Today, I will analyze it with lawyer Yeo Sang-won and political critic Kim Sang-il. Please come in. Hello, political issue, first keyword, let's look at it right away. Representative Lee Jae-myung, I used the expressions of gratitude and respect at the meeting this morning. Representative Lee expressed his gratitude and respect to the judiciary three days before the trial on the suspicion of perjury teachers. I'll listen to it myself. We would like to express our gratitude and respect. When Lee Jae-myung made this statement at today's meeting, why did everyone make this statement, and there are many interpretations, so how do you think about it?

[Yeo Sangwon]
If this was said to the first trial's election law violation court, I respect the judiciary, and even if the result comes out against me, I cannot accept the conclusion of the judiciary, but I respect it. This is what kind of message is being given to the court in the perjury teacher case, which came three days later. This is because the first trial's violation of the election law has been protesting in Seocho-dong and Gwanghwamun to put some psychological pressure on judges. In the end, the conclusion of the first trial's violation of the election law was not expected, but the Democratic Party of Korea and Chairman Lee Jae-myung probably hoped that there would be no problem with their right to run for election less than 1 million won.

But I've actually said that the fine would be about 300 to 500, but didn't you get a huge sentence? In the end, I think he thought that the judicial pressure struggle had a negative effect on the sentencing of the judges. So this time, let's go out on a conciliatory policy and try to appease the judiciary, it's a bit of a nuisance. Anyway, it is seen as a statement to the effect of not setting a confrontational angle with the judiciary.

[Anchor]
And lawyer Yeo Sang-won has been a judge. Do you think these comments have an impact?

[Yeo Sangwon]
I don't know how the other judges do it, but I'm a little insensitive to what the judges like about my experience and examples of my fellow judges around me. On any external influence. So even though you said this, it will not greatly affect the conclusion already, I think so.

[Anchor]
The remarks came three days before the first trial of perjury, and lawyer Yeo Sang-won said, "What if I had made this statement on the morning of the first trial of the election law a week ago?" How do you see it?

[Kim Sang Il]
As a leader, you have to say something that respects the system of the state, whether it's the same day or not. Otherwise, what would happen to the people if the leaders didn't say that? You don't respect it more. There is a saying that the lower water is clear only when the upper water is clear. The stomach water gets a little dirty. In the lower water, you think this can be completely dirty, so you can completely turn water into garbage. You can think that we have to be more careful when the water is clean and the stomach water comes down clean. So, I think leaders' attitudes should always be exemplary, so we should always talk about this.

It's fortunate that you came here today and said this, but I think this. This shouldn't be role-play. In other words, if the leader, the supreme leader, and the opposition's supreme leader have said this, the people under him should be allowed to do it one after another. If the supreme leader says it and leaves it alone for his followers and supporters to say it like that, wouldn't there be room for misunderstanding like this? So, I think it would be better to actively communicate this intention to the following followers and supporters so that we can continue this trend more sincerely.

[Anchor]
Today, CEO Lee Jae-myung said, "We shouldn't criticize the entire judiciary." But don't the ruling and opposition parties usually say they respect it in front of important rulings by the court, criticize and advocate according to the results?

[Yeo Sangwon]
That's what I've always done.

[Anchor]
So, no matter how the results of the first trial come out, I hope the ruling and opposition parties will be the most basic. Thank you very much. The perjury sentence is three days away from the first trial. The prosecution first demanded a three-year prison term for the suspicion of perjury teachers next Monday. Representative Lee Jae-myung is pleading not guilty. How do you view it?

[Yeo Sangwon]
I've heard Lee Jae-myung's words in pieces, so I don't know the exact details because I haven't looked at the records. If you listen, Kim Jin-sung, so he's being tried together for perjury.

[Anchor]
There's a transcript that's controversial. Please show me.

[Yeo Sangwon]
But tell me the truth about that.

[Anchor]
CEO Lee Jae-myung said, "As it is, the time has passed anyway."

[Yeo Sangwon]
But that doesn't make a conclusion.

[Anchor]
But I'll send you a summary of your argument, you can do that.

[Yeo Sangwon]
That's right. You just pointed it out. What does that mean? This is the summary of the pleadings claiming the innocence of representative Lee Jae-myung. So, when the prosecution or the lawyer's cross-examination that will come out during the witness examination that day, CEO Lee Jae-myung says, "There is no such fact, this is a fabrication." Don't you say, "This is a fabrication?" It will be written in detail in the summary of the argument in addition to the facts. Kim Jin-sung reads it in advance and puts it in his mind, and then goes to court and testifies based on it. If you don't

, there is no reason to send Kim Jin-sung a summary of the argument about the facts that asserts his innocence. So tell me the truth I told you earlier, if you hear something like this at first glance, it's not innocent, right? Why are you guilty of telling the truth? It's not perjury. But what I'm telling you is that you sent me a transcript of the overall process of this case, a summary of that argument, on Telegram. In view of this, I don't know the conclusion yet because I can't help but see it as a testimony requested by CEO Lee Jae-myung.Ma will be found guilty. However, what will be the sentence? I'm just waiting for that right now.

[Anchor]
Representative Lee Jae-myung and Kim Jin-sung recorded the phone call on December 22, 2018. The issue was that representative Lee Jae-myung appeared at a debate when he was governor of Gyeonggi Province and claimed that he was guilty of impersonating a prosecutor, but was framed and put on trial for violating election laws. But now, CEO Lee Jae-myung claims that he asked me to do it as it is, but how is that perjury teacher? Don't you have a lot of legal acquaintances? How did you expect it?

[Kim Sang Il]
Many people predict that this part is guilty. I told you on the show last time, but the judges were wrong then.

[Anchor]
You're talking about the first trial sentence for violating the Public Official Election Act, right?

[Kim Sang Il]
In the first trial, he predicted that he would be innocent or less than 1 million won. But since they were wrong, I'm not sure if this is right. Because they also have a premise. I told them to presuppose that I didn't read all the records because I had a lot of records. In fact, Judge Han Sung-jin's last ruling also revealed that the judges were not guilty of what they claimed. However, they were found guilty of parts that were not in the media and other parts in the record.

That's why it's not 100% wrong. Anyway, on the premise that not all such records have been reviewed in this case, I predicted a lot of guilt around me, and the judges I conducted a personal survey predicted guilt. But I personally think this. I think it will vary from judge to judge depending on how far the meaning of the teacher will be viewed.

Because it emphasizes that you keep asking for it to be what it is.
But there are some things that I ask for or hope for in my favor. But should I see it as an expression of hope or request or as a teacher? I'm not sure about that, but I also hear a lot of complaints. Then, when I talk about complaints to public officials, they say this. Please do it within your discretion. If you go beyond your discretion, it will be illegal, so please do it within your discretion so that it won't be illegal. I'm saying this, but please do it within your discretion. Looking at this incident, I thought a lot about whether to see it as pressure or as a real standard to just keep it.

[Anchor]
There is also a story that CEO Lee Jae-myung may have said it in consideration of various things because he was a lawyer. But last September. The warrant request for CEO Lee Jae-myung was dismissed, and some of the reasons for the dismissal included that the charges of perjury teachers appear to be clarified. Of course, because each judge has different ideas. I wonder if this has an effect.

[Yeo Sangwon]
I don't have much influence. I don't know if there will be some impact. Because the explanation is not a main trial, but just evidence of facts that are premised on the trial, such as warrants, provisional dispositions, and seizure. It's a little hard to say, but I can do it with that. Proof is a fact that is recognized by strict evidence when convicted in a trial. So this time, I saw it from that point of view that it would be the calling of Yoo Chang-hoon.

[Anchor]
Won't have a big impact on this first trial sentence?

[Yeo Sangwon]
That's right.

[Anchor]
I see. On the 25th, so the first trial will be announced next Monday. Thank you very much. Let's look at the next keyword. Former lawmaker Seol Hoon had an interview this morning. After the first trial on the 25th on the suspicion of Lee Jae-myung's perjury teacher, attention was paid to how the atmosphere within the Democratic Party would change, but former lawmaker Seol Hoon argued that it is common sense for Lee Jae-myung to resign. Let's listen to it. The party is now saying that even the non-government circles should take the lead as a unified team, but he left the Democratic Party of Korea as well as former lawmaker Seol Hoon, and he was a politician who set a lot of angles with representative Lee Jae-myung before leaving the party. Today, former lawmaker Seol Hoon said, "It's common sense to resign."I think Ma is a little different from the current atmosphere within the Democratic Party.

[Kim Sang Il]
That's right. But I think it's a courageous word. Because it's for whom and for whom the Democratic Party is insisting on a single confrontation. I agree that we have to confront the injustice of the current power, or many suspicions, or almost a major evil. But in order to fight against that single confrontation, is it right for us to show ourselves deviating from common sense? This is a very big dilemma. Because if representative Lee Jae-myung collapses, there is a dilemma that we cannot stand up to what we think is evil due to internal conflict on our side. Actually, lawmaker Seol Hoon is right. Because civil servants have power and authority, for example, all civil servants are prosecuted.

Then, you will be dismissed from your position. It's because with that power in an unjust position, you can destroy evidence or do something to escape it. And because something may be continuously bad, they dismiss their positions and take away their authority for now. Then, all ordinary public officials are dismissed from their positions, but they do not dismiss politicians or lawmakers who are more powerful and more powerful. Dismissal of a position is another thing after dismissal. They're taking away their authority for a while, their positions and things like that. But the parliamentary seat is not flying away right now, is it?

But is it right to continue this with the authority of the representative? Then, why do government officials have such a reason to go to the National Assembly and reprimand the minister, saying, "You were indicted in the first trial and you should be fired because you did something bad. Why didn't you do this?" If you look at this, former lawmaker Seol Hoon's story is very common sense. But our camp's dilemma is not that, but whether we can confront the evil that lies before us while keeping this common sense.

[Yeo Sangwon]
I think the Democratic Party's response method will change depending on the outcome of the perjury teacher case on the 25th. Of course, the impact of the election law was large, but if the perjury teacher is sentenced to one year in prison or suspended for two years and three years in June, the one-party system of representative Lee Jae-myung will be shaken. So, lawmaker Seol Hoon's words became convincing. So, there is a sense of urgency that the Democratic Party of Korea should find some alternative. However, if a perjury teacher is found innocent or a very light sentence comes out, the representative Lee Jae-myung's system could go a little further, and Lee Jae-myung will continue his strong rental struggle or the presidential struggle because of the election law violation, so I predict that the Democratic Party of Korea's response method will change depending on the conclusion of the perjury teacher case on the 25th.

[Anchor]
I see. Let's take a look at the Gallup poll that came out today. The president's job performance evaluation was 20% as it was. The negative rating rose 1 percentage point to 72%. And. The reason for the positive evaluation was Kim Gun-hee, the first in the negative evaluation of diplomatic high schools. Political party support was 28% of the people's power and 34% of the Democratic Party. Regarding Lee Jae-myung's first trial ruling on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, 42 percent of unfair political oppression and 43 percent of legitimate rulings came out. During the NBS survey yesterday, please show it. It's an appropriate judgment. It came out 49%, and it was a wrong ruling, and it came out 41%. There is a public opinion poll on the first trial decision of Lee Jae-myung.

[Kim Sang Il]
Looking at the results of this poll, I think the prosecution and the current government should be very sick. The court is the last determiner of social conflict in a modern country. But does it make sense that the court's judgment is unfair now, or is this positive, that it comes out tight? Then it's an issue that could cause the modern state to collapse. If the court's final decision doesn't solve the problem, what next? Attempts are bound to be made to solve problems by their individual personal remedy and power.

It shows that our society is faced with a very dangerous situation, but if it's called unfair political oppression, would you say that because of the judiciary's judgment? No. The judiciary's judgment may be correct, but the process was unfair, so this is an expression that feels unfair when judging this as a whole. Then I think that the current administration and the prosecution should be very sick. If I were to tell you one more thing, we're only looking at the total number. However, the middle-of-the-road graphic would not have been prepared, but Gallup's middle-of-the-road poll shows that it is unfair and 5% higher.

[Anchor]
What about the middle class?

[Kim Sang-il]
When looking at the middle, 38% of them are positively correct and 43% are unfair. This is the part where I have to be sick. In the NBS survey, the positive response was rather high, but the negative judgment was rather high in the opinion polls that came out a few days later. I think we are at a stage where all social leaders, whether academic or religious, have to start thinking about how our society should overcome the crisis that is coming.

[Anchor]
Show us a little more Gallup research. Let me explain a little more. 86% of the people's power supporters said it was a legitimate ruling, but 79% of the Democratic Party's supporters said it was unfair political oppression. In the non-party group, 43% of legitimate rulings and 23% of unfair suppression were unfair, while 43% of respondents who identified their political orientation as moderate and 38% of political parties. You're talking about this part, right? Thank you very much. Lawyer Yeo Sang-won.

[Yeo Sangwon]
In my opinion, the respondents said that the sentence was nearly 160 pages long, but I didn't say it after looking at it. As our critic Kim Sang-il said earlier, the process to this sentence is important, but I think it's an answer based on ideology. So, from what I see now, people who say it is unfair, why did these people go biased to one side without investigating Kim Gun-hee or these people? It doesn't mean that this is what appeared, that the judgment itself was wrong. However, those who are justified are those who focus on the crimes of Lee Jae-myung's individual rather than the issue of Kim Gun-hee. So, as critic Kim Sang-il said, this is a very sad and unfortunate poll result, but it is a very unfortunate scene for me that the results of the judiciary's hard trial for two years and two months are divided according to some ideology.

[Kim Sang Il]
It's not just a pity, but I think it's actually dangerous. In a modern state, the conflict must be resolved by the system, and the last decision to resolve the conflict is the judiciary. When the court decides, most of them have accepted it, thinking that they have no choice but to just accept it until now. But not now. It's dangerous. So, I hope our people will think again that the balance of power and the checks and balances are too important.

[Anchor]
I see. Thank you very much. The fourth outdoor rally is scheduled for tomorrow. It is said that they decided not to wear blue clothes that symbolize the Democratic Party. In response, Kim Byung-joo, the supreme council member, responded by saying, "The power of the people is a blatant trick to participate as if they are ordinary citizens," while Kim Byung-joo, the supreme council member, naturally responded by saying, "Come with comfortable clothes." We will listen to the voices of Secretary-General Seo Bum-soo and Supreme Council member Kim Byung-joo. Tomorrow's outdoor rally will continue. It is led by the Democratic Party of Korea, but there are also separate rallies held by civil society groups. There were many interpretations about the purpose of not wearing blue clothes. How are you watching it?

[Kim Sang Il]
I think it's the right direction. Because I said this even when I was on this show from the beginning. If the Democratic Party takes the lead, it is highly likely that it will not be powered. That's why I said that we should put civil society first. But it's like this. That's a good attempt. It's a good attempt, but I didn't let you wear it, but what if the content is the color of the clothes as it is? As expected, it won't be powered. So I was basically good at saying not to dress formally. But even in terms of content, we shouldn't just talk about blue over there. It is right to talk about the problems of the Lee administration with Kim Gun-hee, the essence of the matter, and to refrain from other things as much as possible and not come out. That way, we will be able to get power and move forward with strong main power, I think.

[Anchor]
Do you think civil society or ordinary citizens will participate more?

[Kim Sang Il]
That's why I told you. The story. They talk about Jinyoung's competition. For example, Then, our representative Lee Jae-myung is innocent and asks us to participate in the petition for innocence, and the middle-class people can think, "This is a battlefield for the camp, we're not coming out to realize justice." That's why I'm telling you that. The content is also important.

[Yeo Sangwon]
I think I've been on trial for a long time, so someone's saying, that's what we're the captain. It's called proof that justifies the claim. So when Rep. Kim Byung-joo said that, is this the real intention or as Secretary-General Seo Bum-soo said? In the end, we need to comprehensively look at the context of Kim Byung-joo's words, the situation of the Democratic Party of Korea, and determine whether Kim Byung-joo's words are from the heart. If I say this, it will have the same purpose as President Seo Bum-soo, but I think he thought that such a protest in Seocho-dong during the election law violation had an adverse effect. So when you think of blue clothes, don't you think of the Democratic Party of Korea?

In this way, no matter how good the intention is, if such a political color goes in, wouldn't the rally eventually appear to have been done to put pressure on the judge again in the case of Lee Jae-myung's perjury teacher?

[Anchor]
I see. Before we move on to the next keyword, let's talk about representative Cho Kuk. Representative Cho Kuk has set an appeal date on the 12th of next month. I was sentenced to 2 years in prison in the first and second trials, what do you think will be the key issue in the judgment of the appeal?

[Yeo Sang-won]
What kind of fake should I say in the appeal, did you issue various fake certificates, I'm not going to hear this anymore. Since it's a matter of fact recognition, the same conclusion came out in the first and second trials. The problem is that the PC of Dongyang University is the owner of Dongyang University during the search and seizure, and the main body of evidence in it is Professor Cho Kuk or Jeong Gyeong-sim. For this reason, he argued that the seizure and search should be conducted in the presence of those people.

[Anchor]
The representative of the country insisted that it could not be used as evidence, right? [Yeo Sangwon] For violation of procedures. So I did it and was rejected in the second trial, but what the Supreme Court should do is whether it is right or not, illegal or not. Um Sang-pil, who was a professor of Jeong Kyung-sim, has decided that there is no illegality in this part when the current Supreme Court Justice is the high school vice president, so now lawmaker Cho Kuk's chief justice is also the Supreme Court Justice Um Sang-pil. So I think this is a little faster for the Supreme Court ruling on a big politician.

So this time, about this part. Because if you look here, Justice Lee Heung-gu and Justice Roh Jung-hee are classified as progressives. Even with these people, if this was a problem in my view, I would have gone to the en banc. Because even if only one person has a different opinion in the four-member club called Soboo, this goes to an all-in-one consensus. There was no disagreement there. So there is a possibility that this legal argument may not be accepted a little bit in this regard.

[Anchor]
According to the results of the Supreme Court's appeal, attention is being paid to the future impact depending on the results. What wavelengths are expected depending on the results?

[Kim Sang Il]
I think it's going to be a crisis and an opportunity. Because the Cho Kuk Innovation Party caused a stir in the last general election. But other forces can't stick to it now. What it is is because of the charisma of the representative of the country, because of this, because of the color. So it might be an opportunity to turn into a general mass party. Let's gather a lot of good forces in the next local election and make a really right voice, not some kind of camp logic, but a party that really gets public sentiment, a popular party, and this could be an opportunity.

However, if you want to continue the charisma of the representative of the country, or if you want to continue the color, it becomes a crisis. Why? Because the most central and symbolic figures are missing, the driving force will be considerably weakened. So, in order to use the absence of representative Cho Kuk as an opportunity factor, there are many people in the pro-Moon camp who were killed. If you expand your scope to those people, take countermeasures in the next local elections and present the direction of the party to the people, there are very few alternatives to people right now. I think it could be an opportunity for people who don't have that alternative to become a party that can stand up as a third alternative and get a lot of attention.

[Anchor]
I see. We will wait and see how the Supreme Court's judgment will come out. Let's look at the next keyword. Supreme Council member Kim Jae-won, Supreme Council member of the People's Power. There is a suspicion of manipulating public opinion. It's about the party bulletin board. The controversy continues. Yesterday, CEO Han Dong-hoon said that it is not a matter of falling into an unnecessary self-destruction column, but pro-Yoon said that it is not a situation that can be crushed to the end. In particular, Supreme Council member Kim Jae-won said that the issue of controversy lies in whether or not public opinion is manipulated. Let's listen to it. The controversy over the party's bulletin board continues, and Supreme Council member Kim Jae-won is even suspected of macro today, so quickly reveal it. They say it will be solved in two hours. How are you watching it?

[Kim Sang Il]
I don't understand people who make that argument. Because if this is a manipulation of public opinion, ask for an investigation, and this is a criminal suspicion. You have to request an investigation to investigate and see if CEO Han Dong-hoon committed a crime or not.

[Anchor]
The police are investigating right now.

[Kim Sang Il]
But tell CEO Han Dong-hoon whether this is a family or not, what on earth is this for? Are you doing this for justice? So, I'm doing it to politically scratch or damage representative Han Dong-hoon, or to cause a loss. I could only see it like this.
Then why is CEO Han Dong-hoon trying to shake it like that and scratch it when he is the party leader now? So, is it for the re-creation of the government? Or is it for the future of the party? Or is it to set up justice?

I don't understand. For example, the president did something against the public sentiment in the party, so someone wrote a piece criticizing it. And the criticism is a little excessive, so leave the party, I wrote this. Is that a problem? Do we have to discipline that? Then, with the same logic, if there are people who write about the president like that, I'm sure there are people who write that about CEO Han Dong-hoon. Then, should CEO Han Dong-hoon discipline them at the party audit? I don't think so. So, it doesn't reflect public sentiment, it's not necessary for state administration, and it's not just about setting up justice. In the end, the core essence is whether representative Han Dong-hoon's political understanding is loss or gain, but why is the entire ruling party sticking to it for so long? I think there is a continuing situation that I don't understand.

[Yeo Sangwon]
I'll tell you the procedural part. Speaking of which, CEO Han Dong-hoon and his family are suspected. But if you listen to Kim Jae-won, the Supreme Council member, Han Dong-hoon is asking you to explain. CEO Han Dong-hoon is in charge right now. I'm not a party, but I'm asking you to explain it as if you're a party, but even if you say this isn't CEO Han Dong-hoon, how is that not a neutral agency's judgment? That's just the argument I mentioned earlier. However, Supreme Council member Kim Jae-won told CEO Han Dong-hoon to solve it quickly, tell him if it's not you, but should Kim Jae-won, a former prosecutor, make his own judgment when the two sides have different arguments?

That's not right, is it? So you left it to the investigative agency, didn't you? Isn't this not an accusation fight between the ruling party and the opposition party, but it was done within the same party, so to speak? If the investigative agency judges about this, it follows it, but if you say you're not representative Han Dong-hoon, will you accept it? Kim Jae-won, the supreme council member. So, in my opinion, this is... And it's common sense that CEO Han Dong-hoon can barely seal the current Yoon Han conflict, but it's hard to understand what Supreme Council member Kim Jae-won said because it's not common sense that CEO Han Dong-hoon came forward and posted it on such a bulletin board.

[Anchor]
I see. Let's continue to talk about suspicions about Myung Tae-kyun. The Democratic Party of Korea released a transcript yesterday regarding the suspicion of Myung Tae-kyun. In the run-up to the local elections on the 6th, the cut-off for the exclusion of the then-primary candidate Kim Jin-tae, the current Gangwon governor, was decided on April 14 last year.The final decision was made again as a candidate for governor of Gangwon-do, and in the process, there is a suspicion of Myung's involvement. The transcript was released. Suspicion of intervening in the nomination of former lawmaker Kim Young-sun, intervention in the nomination of the Gyeongnam governor, and intervention in the nomination of the chief of staff Suspicions continue to pour in. How are you watching?

[Kim Sang Il]
That's why the ruling party keeps wanting to focus on Myung Tae-kyun. But that's not what the people are like. It doesn't matter about pollack. But Myung Tae-kyun opened parentheses and closed them because he saved Kim Jin-tae. Through whom is the pollack bacteria?

[Anchor]
It means that you communicated with Mrs. Kim Gun-hee.

[Kim Sang-il]
That's why I want to know this part. For example, the people don't think Myung Tae-kyun is such a great person. But I'm wondering if you're connected to a great person or not. All the circumstances that seem to be connected are being revealed. But I can't trust pollack unconditionally, I'm a bluffer. I'm only defending myself right now. Then the people are more suspicious. There's something wrong with it, so you use that kind of strategy. Wouldn't you think like this?

So, I don't want the ruling party or the government to keep saying this, but I was not in a position to listen to and did not listen to Myung Tae-kyun in such a relationship, and it is a much faster way to clarify this clearly. And that's about it. I'd like to ask you to use your strength in that way now.

[Anchor]
Governor Kim Jin-tae also announced his position yesterday. It's all unfounded. By the way, what do you think of lawyer Yeo?

[Yeo Sangwon]
In the end, the presidential office or the ruling party made a mistake in the initial response and made him look like he was a great person, so wouldn't the people have intervened? So, this problem arose from having doubts because the facts were not revealed. So this can be a boon to the ruling party or the president's office. So even now, I need to reveal the facts properly. I have a feeling of regret. This is how the Minjoo Party of Korea keeps releasing transcripts and being dragged around like this, which is not beneficial to state affairs, nor to the ruling party, and creates distrust in politics in general. Is this Nasputin? Once upon a time, it was called the Yoseung of Russia. As such, I think it is by no means beneficial that state affairs are governed by the mouth of any individual.

[Anchor]
I see. So far, we've released politics. It was with lawyer Yeo Sang-won and political critic Kim Sang-il. Thank you very much. Thank you.