"The possibility of destroying evidence" The presidential office's seizure search failed?Looking at the reason... [Y transcript]

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Jae-hee
■ Starring: Lawyer Park Sung-bae

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

◇Anchor> The police said yesterday that they would consider whether to retry the seizure and search of the presidential office, which had actually failed. If you ask me a question about yesterday's situation, I think you may have questions about why you couldn't enter. Why do I have to get permission to enter when my reputation is a search and seizure?

◆Park Sung-bae> This is because the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that places requiring military secrets can be seized and searched only with the approval of the person in charge. As a result, there is much room for the president's office to be regarded as a place held by military secrets, and accordingly, it cannot enter immediately unless the person in charge agrees. According to the Criminal Procedure Act, when issuing a search warrant, the judge once took the form of receiving a voluntary submission and then entered with the consent of the person in charge if it was not possible to submit it. As a result, full entry was impossible, but in fact, according to the Criminal Procedure Act, it stipulates that entry can be made only with the consent of the person in charge, but there is also a separate provision that the person in charge cannot refuse consent unless it harms the state's significant interests. Perhaps at the scene, the police do not confiscate data that harms the country's grave interests. Only the part related to the allegations in this case would have been confiscated, so they would have asked for permission to enter, and the security office may mix some data with data that harm the country's significant interests once they enter. It's hard to distinguish, so I think they scuffled to the effect that it's difficult to enter right away. In the end, only some of them received voluntary submissions and the police had no choice but to go back, but in light of past precedents, some of them received voluntary submissions and no longer attempted seizure and search. However, this issue is inevitable to raid the presidential office. It seems that the police have no choice but to try again.

◇Anchor> If we try again, can't we do it if we face resistance from the presidential security office?

◆Park Sung-bae> When he/she tries, he/she will further strengthen the legal basis for entering. If there is no reason to infringe on the important national interests when the court issues a search warrant, the person in charge must approve it, and only collects data directly related to the case, and is expected to ask the court directly to add some purpose to the search warrant on the condition that other data are not collected. If a more active warrant is issued on the condition that data that harms the state's significant interests are not included in the search and seizure target, the possibility of entry will be higher.

◇Anchor> Yesterday, I received some data by voluntary submission. But there was no data at the time of the cabinet meeting that I needed the most. Anyway, the presidential office is in a position that there is no data, but is there no data? Or is there a possibility of destroying evidence?

◆Park Sung-bae> We can fully predict the possibility of destroying evidence. There is a strong desire for the president to protest that there is no related data if the issue is so serious and the Cabinet meeting is not held properly. First of all, we need to secure related data to see if the Cabinet meeting was held properly.With specific statements from other people involved, especially those related to special forces, counterintelligence, investigators, and intelligence agencies pouring in, it is difficult to clear the charges just by protesting that there is no data from the State Council. Rather, if you protest that there is no data from the State Council, it will serve as a circumstance that increases the possibility of issuing an arrest warrant due to concerns about the destruction of evidence. The investigation will face difficulties if the state council's data is not secured at a time when the statements of those involved are not secured to some extent, but if the state council's data is not secured at a time when the investigation of those involved is sufficiently secured, it will serve as a reason to increase the possibility of Yoon Suk Yeol's arrest.

Excerpted from the Talk: Kim Seo-young, Editor of the Digital News Team

#YRecord