[New Square 2PM] Yoon "High political judgment"...Democratic "extreme delusion"

■ Host: anchor Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Starring: Jang Young-soo, professor of law at Korea University Law School, lawyer Seo Jeong-bin

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 2PM] when quoting.

[Anchor]
President Yoon Suk Yeol made his first appearance in five days, stressing the inevitability of emergency martial law. a fast-changing political situation Let's also look at what the legal issues are. Today, we will be joined by Jang Young-soo, a professor of law at Korea University, and Seo Jeong-bin, a lawyer. Please come in. President Yoon, I made a public statement for nearly 30 minutes this morning for quite a long time, and I wonder what you both thought about it in general before reviewing the contents of the statement one by one. First of all, how was it, professor?

[Jang Young-soo]
Compared to the last conversation, the content of the conversation was long and complicated, but there was not much new. In the end, there was nothing decisive to change the legal judgment. However, what I felt while listening to the president's statement was that he has now made up his mind to argue legally. It used to seem to persuade the people, but now it talks about legal issues one by one. In the meantime, I believe that this was shown with this intention that I would legally fight when I went to the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial.

[Anchor]
How did you see it, lawyer?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I thought it was almost the same as what the professor said. In fact, I thought there were a lot of explanations that were difficult to understand in terms of content, and from the lawyer's point of view, today's discourse seems to be a view of the attorney's opinion submitted by the suspect or the accused in criminal proceedings. In fact, when I expected it, I expected that there would be some mention of the responsibility for causing this unstable situation, but rather than that, the declaration of martial law made sense. And it seems that the opposition party is responsible for it. On the other hand, I did not hear a legal and logical basis for the unconstitutionality of such martial law measures, and I said I would not avoid legal and political responsibility issues, but in some cases, the declaration of martial law is not subject to judicial review because it constitutes an act of governance, and when I saw them talk about it like this, I thought it included some contradictions.

[Anchor]
In the midst of this, breaking news regarding the investigation situation has come in and I will deliver it to you. A special police unit is securing martial law data for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is the news. The police have expressed their intention to voluntarily submit investigation-related data. And he said he hasn't tried the second raid of the presidential office yet.

And regarding the seizure and search of the presidential office that was attempted yesterday, he said that he was unable to enter the presidential office and received only a few data. Regarding the second search and seizure, he said he has not yet tried. I'll keep you posted as soon as I hear from you regarding this. When I analyzed today's presidential statement, the professor said that there was nothing new, but that day, on the night of December 3, I said that the declaration of emergency martial law was an emergency measure borrowed from the form of martial law. By the way, can this be implemented by borrowing the form of martial law under the constitution?

[Jang Young-soo]
That's not true. There is no emergency measure under the current constitution. As you all know, there was an emergency measure in the Yushin Constitution, and the name was changed from the Constitution of the Fifth Republic to an emergency measure, and now the president's emergency order, an emergency financial and economic order, and its disposition, in addition to the martial law of Article 77. But if you said emergency measures in that sense, why did you do this with Article 77, not Article 76. Not only do you have this problem, but the fundamental difference between emergency measures under Article 76 and whether or not to mobilize the military is the decisive difference.

And after all, no matter how emergency measures or what they are, they must meet the constitutional requirements of Article 77 martial law, and the most existing problem right now is that emergency martial law was declared without the requirements of Article 77, which is unconstitutional and illegal in itself. There's nothing different about this.

[Anchor]
There is no change in not meeting the emergency martial law requirements. In addition, there are many legal points I want to point out in today's presidential statement. Today, President Yoon used much of his discourse to criticize large opposition parties, stressing the inevitability of martial law. Let's listen to the main remarks together. There was a mention that it was an anti-state force, but when the emergency martial law was declared on the 3rd, it used the expression of shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces. And in today's statement, I decided to exercise the president's power in the framework of the Constitution. These expressions were made to invoke martial law, thereby preventing the collapse of the liberal democratic constitutional order and normalizing the function of the state. How do you view it legally?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, given the president's statement, I don't think so if you ask whether such a state function has actually been paralyzed. What's taking issue now is, for example, that the National Assembly has reduced the budget bill, or that the impeachment prosecution has been overrun, which is actually done within the framework of the Constitution, which is the power of the National Assembly, which is recognized by the Constitution and the law. Regardless of the political validity of them, first of all, the state constitutional order is changing disorderly after seeing this situation in which constitutional authority is exercised. Rather, there is no great disagreement that this emergency decree was made without constitutional and legal requirements, so it was actually the declaration of emergency martial law that broke the framework under the constitution, so I think it is actually very persuasive in this regard.

[Anchor]
The opposition party is taking issue with the part that it intended to dissolve the National Assembly through emergency martial law or paralyze its function, and President Yoon made it clear today that he did not intend to do so. Therefore, only a few troops were put in as a basis, and an hour or two, that is, not long. I heard that you ordered the withdrawal of troops immediately, but is it sufficient evidence, professor?

[Jang Young-soo]
In this regard, it is not a matter of justification of emergency martial law, but rather a dispute over the requirements for the constitution of the crime of civil war, which is currently in the midst of controversy. Even before President Yoon's statement, this part was controversial in the academic world. The criminal law requires that all or part of the territory of the Republic of Korea be occupied by force to exclude the state power of the Republic of Korea, or to riot for the purpose of national constitution, and the criminal law stipulates that the main problem now includes neutralizing state institutions in the national constitution except for everything else. This is the core of the rebellion crime controversy.

And what President Yoon said was not aimed at neutralizing the National Assembly. If I had that purpose, I would not have put this much manpower into the martial law army, and if I had that purpose, I would not have lifted martial law as soon as the National Assembly demanded it be lifted. This makes sense. However, there is now a testimony that the commander of the Special Forces Command was instructed to bring down lawmakers from there, and the presidential office was at that time, so it was not a situation that could happen. That's the wrong thing to say. In this situation where the controversy continues, it seems necessary to confirm this additional evidence. We need to check which one is correct.

[Anchor]
So there are some disagreements among constitutional scholars as to whether it is a crime of rebellion, right?

[Jang Young-soo]
Now, not only the Constitution, but also criminal law scholars, because rebellion is a crime under the criminal law. There are a lot of opinions coming from there.

[Anchor]
Can you organize the objections?

[Jang Young-soo]
Insurrection is a crime of purpose. However, there is a purpose and no purpose, but in the end, it continues to be controversial. But isn't there a precedent that admitted the crime of rebellion here? In April 1997, the Supreme Court admitted to the crime of rebellion in power through the coups of Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo. And at that time, the new military coup eventually triggered emergency martial law after the October 26 incident, but by expanding it nationwide through May 17 and May 18, it proceeded in this form of mobilizing certain military forces to actually seize state power. In the end, it is correct to comprehensively judge the background, progress, and results of the process of moving martial law forces under such martial law.

They judged that they did it to take control of the state's power, and that's why they took control of it. The problem is that when the criteria for this time were applied directly to President Yoon's emergency martial law, President Yoon seems to have been conscious of that and made such an argument. To do so at the time, tens of thousands of martial law troops were deployed and thousands were sent to the National Assembly. But now I didn't do that, less than 300 people. There are 280 people talking about it and 200 people talking about it. And the National Assembly decided to lift martial law as normal anyway, and immediately lifted it according to that resolution.


If I really had that intention to neutralize the National Assembly, isn't this inconsistent? Because I'm insisting on this part, if scholars didn't do that, why did they put martial law forces in so much? I think those who focus on this side should acknowledge it, not as a result, but as a result, and as I said in the Supreme Court precedent, shouldn't we look at the progress and outcome comprehensively? Those who think that this is difficult without additional evidence.

[Anchor]
I'd like to hear from lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. When Yoon Sang-hyun mentioned the Supreme Court's case in 1997, he said, "We consider emergency martial law to be highly political and governmental," as if he was defending President Yoon's declaration of emergency martial law. In addition, Daegu Mayor Hong Joon Pyo posted a message saying that emergency martial law is the president's authority, but it is questionable whether it can be considered a civil war because the reason for martial law is inappropriate. What do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, from what Representative Yoon Sang-hyun said, in the end, in the case of martial law declaration, the judiciary may not be able to judge this because it is an act of governance and a highly political act. In fact, I think this is a story that is half right and half wrong. Obviously, the Supreme Court also recognizes governance to some extent and judges that there is such an area where the judiciary can control it a little more. However, since it is an act of governance, can't it be judged unconditionally? And this is not it. Therefore, even if the Supreme Court recognizes the act of governance, it is judged that there are cases where the judiciary needs to make a judgment on this, so isn't it a claim that omitted this part a little? In particular, in the case of this case and martial law, regardless of the request, the opinion that it is already constitutional and unconstitutional martial law is quite dominant, so no matter how much such judgment by the judiciary can be restrained, it is of course possible for the judiciary to judge such measures in the first place, and I think this is more important.

[Anchor]
Just now, the fire accident breaking news came in, so let's talk about the president's statement. Around 1:10 p.m. today, so about an hour ago, a fire broke out at a factory in Gajwa-dong, Seo-gu, Incheon. There was news that the fire department has issued the first stage of response in which the fire department is dispatched and is currently working on extinguishing the fire.

This factory is said to be a three-story building with sandwich panels. A fire was reported to 119 at 1:15 p.m. today, and the fire department saw flames and smoke erupting to the outside when the first team arrived, and it is said that they saved lives and put out fires. I'll keep you posted as soon as I hear about it.
If the professor said a little while ago that the intention and purpose of this rebellion are very important, then how should we judge from the standpoint of judging that the intention and purpose were not intended?

[Jang Young-soo]
Now, the crime of rebellion is a target crime that is recognized only when it has the purpose of the so-called national constitution. And if such a purpose is not recognized, the crime of rebellion itself cannot be recognized. However, in this regard, as I mentioned earlier in the Supreme Court's en banc decision, I explained the background of what the background was and what intention he had done this. in the sense of distinction from intention or purpose And the second is what's going on. How much military did you mobilize, where did you put it, and how did you drag it all the way? And in the end, what is the result? In the end, at that time, it was successful to seize state power in that way and call it a new military coup, and Chun Doo-hwan, the then security commander, became the president. I made a comprehensive judgment on these things. However, in this regard, the Supreme Court at the time emphasized the part of comprehensive judgment.

In other words, it is difficult to expect that you admit the purpose. So, we have no choice but to judge by looking at various circumstances, and this is not the case by looking at only one, this is right, this is right, but rather than doing this, shouldn't we look at the whole thing in the end? Since you don't admit it yourself, you have no choice but to see the whole thing. That's what I said.

[Anchor]
It is difficult to predict now because it is necessary to carefully examine whether it is a crime of rebellion in consideration of various situations and circumstances?

[Jang Young-soo]
So, the data that has been released so far is insufficient, and in the end, we are continuing to investigate in the future, so it is necessary to comprehensively judge the data that comes from it.

[Anchor]
In the end, testimonies against President Yoon continue to come out now. It's coming out from the commanders, too. In particular, the contents related to the order of arrest of the National Assembly were not specifically included in today's discourse. It's a bit unfavorable to the president himself. These testimonies are contrary to President Yoon's argument, so the president purposely avoided mentioning them, right? What do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's how it looks. In yesterday's case, Kwak Jong-geun, commander of the Special Forces Command, had two phone calls with the president at the time, and in the second call, the president gave instructions. I made a statement saying that there was an order to bring down the lawmakers because it seemed to be less than the quorum of the National Assembly's decision. In fact, this is a situation that directly contradicts what the president has been explaining so far, that is, it was a warning measure, and that he had no intention of interfering with the National Assembly's intention. So, as long as the statement of the commander who was involved at the time was made in detail, I think it would have been a little difficult to publish a statement that refuted it head-on.

[Anchor]
The professor said earlier that we need to see various circumstances, but from what's out now, there are CCTV videos inside the National Assembly at the time. Also, aren't there videos captured by various media outlets and direct testimony from those involved? How much evidence can this provide?

[Jang Young-soo]
The problem now is that, for example, the president's office has made an unusual and immediate rebuttal to the statement made by the Special Forces Commander that the lawyer just said. What is the point there? Lawmakers are gathering to vote on it right now, and it is being broadcast live about it, so does it make sense to put martial law troops into it to bring it out? This can't happen, refute it like this. That makes sense. So we shouldn't just listen to either side, but either side is wrong. The process of checking it will be necessary in the future, and the CCTV footage now also differs slightly depending on the angle of view, and on the other hand, there are hundreds of people there, 190 lawmakers and hundreds of National Assembly staff, and the martial law army is being tapped.

There is also a view that this can be seen as neutralization of the National Assembly. So it's a comprehensive understanding of what happened. For example, we need to check whether we did it in small numbers because we didn't intend to do that in the first place, or whether we had a clear intention that this number was enough, but only a small number went in.

[Anchor]
I see. We just got a breaking news. A vote on the general special prosecution and the Kim Special Prosecutor Act is scheduled to be held at the National Assembly today, but the ruling party has decided to oppose it as a party platform.

[Anchor]
This is the announcement made by Kwon Sung-dong, the new floor leader who was elected as the floor leader today. I would like to inform you that the ruling party has decided to oppose it as a party platform. And one more breaking news. The breaking news broke that President Yoon Suk Yeol, who lifted the chip, approved the Cabinet agenda this afternoon. The content is that 21 bills and 21 presidential ordinances passed by the Cabinet meeting on the 10th were approved. I heard that the bill has been transferred to the Ministry of Government Legislation, and there is an interpretation of the will to return to state affairs. We have one more news for

Police have launched a search and seizure of the phone and the server in connection with former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun's phone. Earlier, the National Investigation Headquarters informed me that it had launched a search and seizure of security documents and related servers, despite criticism that it had missed former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's secret phone.

[Anchor]
Let's continue with Professor Jang Young-soo and lawyer Seo Jeong-bin to review the contents of the President's statement today. Among the contents of today's presidential statement, he also expressed his position on the deployment of martial law troops to the NEC, and we will listen to President Yoon's voice when he is ready. Let's listen to President Yoon's voice.

I'll give you another breaking news that just came in. Lee Jae-myung, chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea, seems to have expressed his position on the way to the plenary session a while ago. It can never be a criminal act of rebellion, an act of governance. So this is the position on President Yoon's statement this morning. President Yoon's statement made the people miserable. And he said that civil war crimes can never be an act of governance. He also emphasized once again that impeachment of President Yoon is essential for the lives and safety of the people. I'll let you know as soon as I hear the related news. You've heard the president's position on the entry of martial law forces into the NEC today. How was it?

[Jang Young-soo]
I'm sure there are quite a few people who personally have that suspicion. I've heard similar rumors.

[Anchor]
You're talking about the suspicion of election fraud, right?

[Jang Young-soo]
That's right. But if that happens, it's right to deal with the problem according to legal procedures. However, declaring an emergency martial law and sending in martial law troops now is not a suitable means of fraudulent election suspicions. In the first place, it does not meet the requirements of declaring martial law, and the use of martial law in this way itself will make the people more distrustful. I see this as the problem in itself is the use of inappropriate means, regardless of whether the allegation of fraudulent election is valid or not.

[Anchor]
He said it was wrong to use martial law as a means. The president also said this. Therefore, military officials only followed orders to move troops after the president's announcement of the emergency martial law. Therefore, there was also a mention that they were not at all wrong. Do you think this is a legally accepted logic?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, after the announcement of the emergency martial law, it seems to have two meanings to say that the troop movement was ordered and followed. One can be read as if there was no such discussion with these military officials before the declaration of the emergency martial law, and on the other hand, it is said that they cannot be held legally responsible because they follow the president's instructions.

However, even if there is a presidential order, it does not mean that you have to follow it unconditionally. Even if you look at the Supreme Court or the court ruling, of course, the subordinate is obligated to obey such a legitimate order from his superior, but if the order is clearly illegal, it cannot be regarded as an order of instruction on duty. Therefore, the illegality cannot be rejected or the responsibility cannot be rejected because there is no obligation to comply with this. In the end, it is believed that legal responsibility can be asked. That's why it doesn't seem very appropriate to say that the commanders, the commanders, or the officials, cannot be held accountable because they gave instructions and only implemented them.

[Jang Young-soo]
However, I would like to add one more thing about that, but even if the commanders do, it is difficult to hold the mobilized soldiers accountable. in the military structure of the upper and lower seas How can you disobey orders there? I think I need to think about that.

[Anchor]
I see. Professor, I want to ask you another question. We just broke the news.Ma said that President Yoon approved the Cabinet meeting agenda this afternoon, and earlier, he said he would entrust the party with state administration. What do you think about the current situation of re-authorizing the agenda and exercising any authority?

[Jang Young-soo]
Legally, it is difficult to say that this is wrong, but in the end, he delegated his authority and withdrew it. In other words, in the case of impeachment or something like this, the exercise of authority is suspended at all, but until now, it was a voluntary two-term retreat, not according to any legal requirements. However, whether this is an appropriate action for political and public evaluation, this part needs to be evaluated separately.

[Anchor]
So the delegation itself was not a delegation through procedures, so such an act of delegation.

[Jang Young-soo]
In fact, there's no fixed procedure for that part. Because it's not a common situation to delegate the president's authority. Since this is such an emergency situation, it was interpreted that it was delegated through a discourse in a way that promised the people, and there were no specific documents or such cases when President Kim Dae Jung handed over half of the minister's appointment rights to Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil during the DJP Solidarity, which was previously delegated in such a way.

[Anchor]
President Yoon also stressed that the emergency martial law measure should be viewed as a high-level political judgment. Let's listen to this part for a while. Perhaps this is the most notable part of today's remarks, but I would like to ask you both a question. It was the president's highly political judgment. It's an act of governance again. Do you think it is a statement that can be established in terms of the constitution?

[Jang Young-soo]
The act of governing itself originated from the king's presidency in the old days, and do not argue about it, do not argue about it. In the past, the president was called the ruler, and it was the ruler's decision. I did it like this, don't complain anymore, but it's hard to be used in a democratic country. Because first of all, it is an extreme exception that the president is not a king and recognizes exceptions to the rule of law. It's literally an exception among the exceptions. And in that context, in the case of our Constitutional Court, President Kim Young-sam is not martial law, but the president's emergency financial and economic disposition is also referred to as national management rights, so didn't the real-name financial system be introduced in a surprise move? Even then, this is not an act of governance. So, I reviewed it because it became an area of judicial review.

However, in conclusion, it came out as constitutional. That's not to say that today's act of governance is not recognized at all, but for example, during the Roh Moo Hyun presidency, the dispatch of troops to Iraq was another problem, and I didn't use the term "act of governance" at that time, but anyway, I made this judgment that judicial judgment was inappropriate because it was a highly political act. In other words, today's Constitutional Court precedents, theories, and governance are not constitutional or invalid for any international or diplomatic act that is different from domestic law, so it is recognized at this level. It is common not to recognize even this as an act of governance because it is a martial law or an extraordinary exercise of national emergency rights.

[Anchor]
How did you see it, lawyer?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Of course, in the case of an act such as declaring martial law, it can be seen as a high-level political act or an act of governance. But that's a theoretical story, and in this case, I think it's another matter to question whether the president's declaration of martial law constitutes an act of governance and whether it's legal or constitutional. Therefore, even if this is regarded as an act of governance, martial law is an area where considerable basic rights to the people are restricted, and if so, even if the judiciary recognizes this as an act of governance, it seems that it can be judged. That's why I think that although I can understand the logic itself to some extent, that doesn't mean that it's not subject to judgment.

[Anchor]
We will also hear the voices of the ruling and opposition parties on President Yoon's statement. Let's listen to the voices of the political circle and continue talking. Representative Han Dong-hoon said, "It was a completely unexpected statement," and Kim Min-seok, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, said, "In fact, he admitted to illegal martial law." Attorney, Kim Min-seok, a member of the Supreme Council, admitted to illegal martial law. This part. What remarks can you find from the president?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, it seems that he explained the overall situation related to martial law and made this evaluation of the overall content that he invoked martial law for this reason. Of course, there may be disagreements on how to evaluate these contents, but from that side, the opinion that they have now admitted to illegal martial law is, for example, that the claim that martial law was invoked as a warning measure can be read as meaning that it was not a situation that could actually be done after imposing martial law, so remarks that seem to this effect can be evaluated as acknowledging illegal martial law on the one hand, and on the other hand, the other side has talked about the validity of martial law because it explained the reasons and motives for this martial law situation anyway. I think we can evaluate it like this.

[Anchor]
We prepared a graphic summary of President Yoon's statement today. If you take a look, we'll talk more. President Yoon has talked about various things to argue that it is not a crime of rebellion, and the big opposition party is dancing a crazy sword dance like this. Also, impeachment of BTS, so BTS, is about representative Lee Jae-myung. And we talked about impeaching the members of the State Council. They are creating a spy paradise again. It is becoming a den of drugs. It's becoming a gangland again. So he expressed very strongly that the opposition party is preventing these things from happening now.

The situation in our country is now in a crisis of collapse. And we've been talking about constitutional decisions, acts of governance, and high-level political judgments. Can you make a comprehensive judgment on whether these remarks by President Yoon are not a crime of rebellion?

[Jang Young-soo]
I don't think it's a direct basis for saying that any crisis situation or various negative behaviors in the opposition party is not a rebellion. This, in turn, declared emergency martial law for this reason. It's right to take
as an explanation for this. Nevertheless, the fact that it does not meet the emergency martial law requirements. You can't change this. Rather, isn't this the principle of legality that we need to talk about regarding the civil war? In the end, whether or not it falls under the binding requirements of Article 87. In other words, does it fall under the National Land Tribute or the National Constitution? Until now, however, all or part of the territory of the Republic of Korea has been occupied, so there is no mention of that at all. Even in the state constitutional controversy, rather than virtually excluding the validity of the constitution or laws, it is focused on neutralizing state agencies, and the National Assembly is also being explained among state agencies. Actually, this part is because I'm a lawyer for President Yoon. Why did martial law forces enter the National Assembly? The Constitution and martial law also say that special measures can be taken against the government or courts, but the National Assembly does not.

The reason is that the National Assembly has the power to control martial law if it goes wrong or if it is abused, so the National Assembly is also excluded from the Constitution because of this problem that neutralizing the National Assembly also disables control over abuse. However, the deployment of martial law forces to the National Assembly is causing problems. Nevertheless, President Yoon was not trying to neutralize it anyway. It claims that there was no such intention, and it is strongly argued that it is not applicable to Article 87, so this part needs to be viewed closely. As I said before, if you really try to neutralize it, you will have to add martial law troops as soon as the National Assembly demands martial law, or you will immediately convene an emergency state council and go through procedures according to the law before lifting it.

This part makes me think, "I think so, and if I really tried to neutralize the Assembly, as President Yoon said, would I have put in thousands of people like I did before? Would I have just put in that small number of people, less than 300? This has its own persuasive power, too. However, it is a situation in which it is necessary to examine whether this is true or not in its own way, such as what the other side said, the Special Forces commander said, or tried to arrest a lawmaker, so it is necessary to make a comprehensive judgment while watching the investigation process and the investigation process.
That's what I was saying.

[Anchor]
Various media outlets, including today's presidential statement, chose impeachment rather than voluntary resignation when the president is out of office. It showed the will to be judged by
Heonjae. They organize it like this, but even if we go to the Constitutional Court, isn't there a lot of things we have to watch?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. In the end, today's announcement mainly talked about future impeachment proceedings or criminal proceedings, so it seems that some people are predicting the impeachment proceedings in the end. In the end, the question is whether martial law in this case is unconstitutional, and if it is an impeachment case, it is beyond unconstitutional, and even if it is admitted to be unconstitutional, it is expected to specifically question whether it is a serious reason to lead to the dismissal, and of course, President Yoon's side is expected to present such purposes and motives as the main reason for pleading, as announced by the president now. Likewise, in the case of a civil war, the purpose is very important, but as the professor said, there is a refutation to admit the purpose as it is now, and there are objections that if so, it would not have proceeded in this way, so I think it will be a key content to be argued about.

[Anchor]
If we get to the Constitutional Court's judgment, wouldn't we be able to predict when the Constitutional Court's judgment will come out and how long the next presidential election will be held?


[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, this part can be expected to some extent only when the impeachment is passed after now and the impeachment motion is passed. Looking at how long the impeachment cases against the president took before that, I made a lot of judgments as early as three or four months, and I think I can expect that in this situation first. However, the variable is that the number of constitutional judges currently falls short of the quorum. So it's not filling the garden. Since it is operated under a six-member system, it is actually a little difficult to set a specific schedule because these parts are variables, whether the constitutional trial will proceed as it is or wait until more members are added. And since the results of the judgment will determine whether or not the presidential election will be decided later, it will be difficult to set a specific timing so far.

[Anchor]
Now, let's move on to the story related to the investigation situation. Yesterday, the police launched their first raid on President Yoon. We launched a raid on the presidential office, but we confronted the security for hours and eventually failed to enter. Why couldn't you enter the presidential office even though the court issued a warrant like this, professor?
[Jang Young-soo]
For now, there are two problems. One is that Article 84 of our Constitution recognizes the president's privilege against criminal prosecution. However, what is specified here is fluorochu. However, can't we just prosecute or investigate? And in the end, it is an exception to the crime of rebellion, so we are now proceeding to investigate and prosecute here, right? However, the question is whether it is possible to detain people or search for them. There is a controversy over this.

In fact, in the case of France, the constitution and the incumbent president cannot be summoned for questioning. In some cases, seizure and search or physical detention are not allowed, and in some cases, like the Italian Constitution, it is stipulated that it is done in cases of treason or treason. But there's only one part like this right now. Another thing is that there must be a lot of top secret data in the presidential office, right? And in such cases, there are regulations that prohibit the person in charge without the consent of the person in charge.
If you think about the regulations, there are parts that are inappropriate to push into.

[Anchor]
I just told you about the police investigation, and it is known that the minutes of the Cabinet meeting and data on access to the presidential office were written on the list of search warrants, but the police only received some very limited data by voluntary submission. What is the voluntary submission method?

[Jeongbin Seo]
There are two main methods of investigation under the Criminal Procedure Act. So one is forced investigation and the other is arbitrary investigation. If you look at the process of securing this evidence, there is a method of receiving evidence through a forced investigation, that is, a court warrant, and otherwise, you can collect items that the parties submit arbitrarily without a warrant. In the case of voluntary submission, it is not a form of execution of a warrant, but a random method of submission by the person who keeps it. If there are no special procedural problems, there is no difference in the ability or proof of evidence, whether confiscated or voluntarily submitted as a warrant.

[Anchor]
Securing evidence like this should be done very quickly. in the investigation Therefore, there are many concerns about the possibility of destroying evidence, so how do you look at it, professor?

[Jang Young-soo]
Here we have to look at two aspects. One is that there must be a fear of destroying evidence. On the other hand, the law also restricts the sending of military secrets and top secret documents that can cause problems when they are leaked by mistake, so we have to weigh which is bigger when comparing the two. It is difficult to say that this is compulsory, just thinking about the evidence.

[Anchor]
Investigative agencies have expressed their position that it is possible to arrest President Yoon now, what do you think legally?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Legally, I think there will be a little ambiguous part. In the end, what is being talked about now is whether or not to issue an emergency arrest against the president, but in fact, an emergency arrest is too short of time to apply for a warrant and obtain it. Nevertheless, it is carried out when there is a concern of destruction of evidence or flight.
By the way, the police or prosecution has not yet carried out such things as a summons against President Yoon. That is why the president can be immediately arrested without such a request for subpoena. If so, I think there will be controversy over whether we have met the requirements for an emergency arrest. So, even if arrests and other things are reviewed in the future, I think that in order to actually implement this, more summons requests or investigations should be made in advance.

[Anchor]
And many members of the State Council, or the Commissioner of the National Police Agency and the Commissioner of the National Police Agency, Jo Ji-ho, initially made these statements that they knew martial law through the media, but now different circumstances and testimonies are continuing. It is confirmed now that the president called the police chief to Anga three hours before the declaration of the emergency martial law, but it is completely contrary to the claims of National Police Agency Commissioner Jo Ji-ho. What do you think?

[Jang Young-soo]
First of all, checking the facts is the priority. If the previous story is not true, it is perjury in testimony to the National Assembly, depending on the procedure through which it was revealed.

[Anchor]
Wait a minute, let's take a look at the plenary hall. The impeachment motion against Justice Minister Park Sung-jae and National Police Agency Commissioner Jo Ji-ho, proposed by the Democratic Party of Korea, has now been voted on and the results have been confirmed. It looks like you're doing a check right now.

[Anchor]
It seems that the check is being done. Professor, please continue to answer.

[Jang Young-soo]
In the end, if this was the kind of procedure for testifying, there could be a problem of perjury under the National Assembly's Testimony Appraisal Act. It can be done accordingly, but in the current situation, I think it will be a little more difficult to avoid charges such as emergency rule or a rebellion that is actually said to be involved in it.

[Anchor]
And the police, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and the Ministry of National Defense launched a joint investigation headquarters to investigate the truth of martial law.
It's only the prosecution that's missing here. How do you understand this situation?

[Jeongbin Seo]
According to reports, it seems that he did not deliver any special opinions to the prosecution while setting up such a joint investigation headquarters. In the end, if this happens, the subject of the investigation will be divided into two. In fact, if this proceeding, the efficiency of the investigation could arise. For example, the prosecution is currently detaining people, but if the seizure or search is carried out separately by the joint investigation headquarters, it will be difficult to proceed with the investigation after that. For example, if a suspect's interrogation is conducted based on the confiscation of considerable evidence and the suspect's interrogation is conducted based on this, it can be refuted based on the seized evidence when contradictory or contrary to the facts are confirmed in the suspect's statement. If this procedure is carried out, there will be many difficulties in conducting such a realistically effective interrogation and other investigation procedures. Therefore, if the investigation continues in this state, wouldn't it be a little difficult in terms of time efficiency? So in the end, I think this part should also proceed in an integrated manner.

[Anchor]
You said it was inefficient, but in fact, the subject of the investigation was more spread out. The prosecution, the police, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit were spread out, but it is expected to decrease now, but it is expected to be inefficient. How did you see this competitive situation between these investigative agencies?

[Jang Young-soo]
Now this is a matter of institution. In other words, several investigative agencies. There are three investigative agencies, the police, the prosecution, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. However, the investigation situation could have moved in order because the prosecution had the authority to direct the investigation to the police, but now the authority to direct the investigation has disappeared and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has been added. A new system should have been introduced to coordinate and coordinate them, but there is still no such system. That has been said for a while, and as you said, there is also such an efficiency problem, but on the other hand, the investigating party receives the same thing over there, and the inconvenience or infringement of basic rights of these investigators can also be problematic.

[Anchor]
We're broadcasting the situation of the plenary session of the National Assembly live, and I'll explain it to you because some of you might be curious about the situation. The impeachment motion against Justice Minister Park Sung-jae and National Police Agency Commissioner Jo Ji-ho, proposed by the Democratic Party of Korea, was reported to the National Assembly plenary session the day before yesterday, and the vote was held today. I'm waiting for the results now. The Democratic Party of Korea believes that Minister Park Sung-jae was involved in decision-making at a Cabinet meeting on the emergency martial law incident on the 3rd night, and actively participated in the incident by arresting key figures and securing detention sites in advance. Police Commissioner Jo Ji-ho also said that he violated the right to lift martial law and the right to vote on lawmakers' deliberation and commit rebellion, citing the fact that he used police to block lawmakers from entering the National Assembly on the day of the declaration of martial law. Lawyer, if this impeachment is passed today, their duties will be suspended right away, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. If approved, the job will be suspended in accordance with the regulations immediately and will become an agency system. And then the case goes to the Constitutional Court, once the regulation is that the impeachment will be decided within 180 days.

[Anchor]
Then, do I have to go through the judgment of the Constitutional Court?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. As mentioned earlier, however, the number of judges in the Constitutional Court itself is too short, so it is difficult to predict how long it will take.

[Anchor]
If the police chief is impeached, if the justice minister is impeached, there will be concerns about this vacancy, so what do you think about this?

[Jang Young-soo]
Isn't there still a lot of heads of organizations that are vacant because of impeachment like that right now? And if the concerns about that part are piled up like this, one or two people might end up saying that they will continue to do more. If all 10 heads of institutions are vacant and go to an acting system, there are concerns that this will lead to paralysis of the national function. In addition, isn't there a Cabinet meeting now? Important issues must go through a Cabinet meeting, but even the composition of this Cabinet becomes difficult. Because the acting vice minister can attend but does not have the right to vote. So, I think we should be cautious because there are concerns that this would be a shutdown of the Korean government.


[Anchor]
And the day after tomorrow. A vote on the presidential impeachment is scheduled for Saturday. We don't know what will happen. We'll have to wait and see.If Ma is approved, how will the situation change then? [Seo Jung-bin] I think the public knows a lot about this part after going through the impeachment process once, but first of all, if two-thirds of the registered members, or more than 200 members, agree, it will eventually be passed, and in that case, the president's job execution will be suspended as well. The work will be suspended and the current prime minister will act on behalf of the authority. And likewise, the Constitutional Court has to decide whether to impeach within a set time frame, where we review whether there are constitutional or legal violations and whether this is a significant reason that leads to dismissal. So, the job will be suspended, but the presidency will be maintained, right?

[Jang Young-soo]
In that respect, there is a difference between what we talk about in the Constitution and what we think. In other words, in the case of impeachment, it is an accident because the job is suspended. But if the president is dismissed through the impeachment decision, won't the president become vacant? At this time, it becomes a cigarette. In such a vacancy, a presidential election to elect a new president must be held within 60 days.

[Anchor]
If you look at the plenary session now, the results have been delivered to the chairman of the National Assembly.

[Won-Sik Woo / Speaker of the National Assembly]
Justice Minister Park Sung-jae's impeachment motion declares that out of the total 295 votes, 195 votes and 100 votes were passed. The National Police Agency Commissioner Jo Ji-ho's impeachment motion declares that out of the 295 total votes, 202 votes, 88 votes, one abstention, and four invalid votes were passed. Paragraph 3 of the agenda, the bill on the appointment of a special prosecutor, etc. to investigate the facts of the act of rebellion through the declaration of unconstitutional emergency martial law by the Yoon Suk Yeol government. Paragraph 4 of the agenda, the bill on the appointment of a special prosecutor, etc. to investigate the facts of the case of the Yoon Suk Yeol President's spouse, Kim Gun-hee's stock price manipulation. I assume two cases above.

[Anchor]
You saw the situation in the plenary session of the National Assembly. I would like to inform you a little while ago that both the impeachment of Justice Minister Park Sung-jae and the impeachment of National Police Agency Commissioner Jo Ji-ho have been passed.

[Anchor]
I would like to inform you that both impeachment charges have been passed with 195 votes in favor of Justice Minister Park Sung-jae and 202 votes in favor of National Police Agency Commissioner Jo Ji-ho. We've been with you two so far. I'll sort it out here. Jang Young-soo, a professor at Korea University's law school, and Seo Jeong-bin, a lawyer, helped. Thank you.