"With cowardly excuses and lies..."Even if you do it, it's too much." The expert's reaction at the press conference [Y transcript]

■ Host: anchor Sung Moon-gyu
■ Appearance: Jang Sung-ho, former president of Konkuk University Graduate School of Public Administration, Park Chang-hwan, special professor at Jangan University

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

◇ Anchor> Seok Dong-hyun, a lawyer for Yoon Suk Yeol Yoon Seok-yeol, held a press conference today (19th). I emphasized again that I cannot admit President Yoon's allegations of civil war. Let's hear your remarks first and then talk.

[Seok Dong-hyun / Legal Consultation of Yoon Suk Yeol President: Not only has the president never mentioned the 'sieve' of the arrest, but.... Regardless of whether you've been arrested or not, where on earth will you take him if you arrest him? As a president, I followed the constitutional procedure as well as the demand for the lifting of martial law in two to three hours according to the constitutional procedure. (The president) I'm thinking, "There's no civil war to quit." At least from the president's point of view, it was a catastrophic emergency.... (Why do you refuse to accept documents from the Constitution?) I think the President and his lawyers will come up with a clean slate on those matters later. (You mentioned that you could detect a change in public opinion, is there a basis?) We're getting information from countless citizens and experts. In addition to the simple approval rating of the government, many arguments on the Internet and cyber for young people are now saying that there is a dispute.. (Are you saying what the president said?) No.

◇ Anchor> Lawyer Seok Dong-hyun, as is well known, has been with Yoon Suk Yeol Yoon Seok-yeol for 40 years. Therefore, today (19th) was a press conference that showed President Yoon's recent feelings, but from the president's point of view, it was a ruinous situation, and he never talked about the arrest at the time. How did you like it? I've denied the charge of rebellion again. Should I look at it like this?

◆Jang Sung-ho> Lawyer Seok Dong-hyun comes to the media as an advisor to brief, but from the lawyer's point of view, isn't there two statements to the public after the president's statement on martial law? It was this act of governance that appeared consistently there. And because it is a constitutional decision and the president's will, situation, purpose, and intention of emergency martial law are clearly based on the constitutional order, this does not correspond to civil war or national constitution. That's how I make my argument as a lawyer. That's what makes it easier for the people to understand from a lawyer's point of view, more specifically, the class that President Yoon Suk Yeol claimed in the last public statement. Isn't it three stories? Article 75 of the Constitution provides for the declaration of emergency martial law, but it conforms to the Constitution. And second, according to Article 71 (1) of the Constitution, an emergency is the president's high degree of governance. That's why this declaration of emergency martial law was a ruling decision, which is illegal. For example, it does not fall under Article 87 of the Criminal Code, Article 91 of the Civil Code, or the crime of civil war. However, under emergency martial law, soldiers entered the National Assembly and damaged objects entered the National Assembly to maintain order, but Article 75 of the Constitution does not stipulate that they should not enter the National Assembly, right? That's why, of course, if active duty soldiers do emergency martial law, soldiers are inevitably mobilized, right? That's why I think it should be judged by various Supreme Court or Constitutional Court whether it was within the constitutional order or whether it was destroyed and entered.

◇Anchor> How did Professor Park hear it?

◆Park Chang-hwan> While watching the press conference today (19th), you are misleading the public with cowardly excuses and lies. Even if you do it in front of the public, it is too much. I had no choice but to feel this way. Why are you being cowardly? The president has never brought up his arrest, never told him to pull it out, then the soldiers who ran the arrest team, blocked and pulled lawmakers out, then the soldiers who did that refused his order? So was it a police and military coup? You have to say something that makes sense. And it's an issue that the whole nation has seen and heard. The National Constitution is the main element of the civil war. What's the National Constitution? All these orders, all preparatory steps, that prevent lawmakers from gathering in the National Assembly, the only institution that can lift martial law, and that the president directs them to bring them down and arrest them. Is this a rebellion? What's a rebellion? In that sense, today's (19th) press conference was literally a consistent press conference with lies that misled the people who directly denied what the whole nation saw and heard live.

◇Anchor> We've reported what Professor Park said before.Ma said that there are aspects that contradict the various testimonies from the National Assembly.

◆Jang Sung-ho> Isn't that why legal proceedings are needed? Aren't all the commanders involved in the professional, heard, or rumors and dispatched to the scene arrested? Since they have to be judged judicial in their own way, they are each quite urgent, and there is a high possibility that they will be. If you confiscate the server and look at it later, you can see the details of the call, but there is no call details. Like Myung Tae-kyun's recording file, we don't have a function to record on our phones, and a non-phonic phone is a non-phonic phone that can't be recorded and can't do anything. Who will we trust then? When the president declares an emergency martial law, martial law requires the president to direct rather than the minister. That's why the president never said that to me. Then shouldn't the person who testified on the other side prove it? In that situation, I think it's likely to flow quite complicatedly.



Excerpted from the conversation: Lee Mi-young, editor of the digital news team

#YRecord