[New Square 2PM] President Yoon's arrest warrant is about to be executed...Physical Conflict Concerns

■ Host: anchor Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Starring: Cha Jin-ah, professor of law at Korea University, lawyer Son Jeong-hye

* 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]
Tensions are rising in front of the presidential residence as it is predicted that an arrest warrant for President Yoon will be executed as early as today. Some analysts say that it is not easy for an actual arrest warrant to be executed. Today, we are joined by two lawyers, Cha Jin-ah, a professor at Korea University's law school, and Son Jung-hye. How are you? Whether the arrest warrant for President

Yoon will be executed today is drawing keen attention, and the arrest warrant is valid until the 6th. There aren't many left.

[Son Jeonghye]
That's right. Since the warrant issued has an expiration date, whether it is executed until the 6th, whether it is renewed, re-claimed, or whether it gives up the execution of the arrest warrant, prosecutes, and obtains an arrest warrant. With various variables remaining, whether there is a schedule coordination between the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the president's office, and the president's lawyers for the past four days, this will be a very important variable. If the government clearly communicates that it will not go out without coordination of the schedule, it is in principle that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit executes an arrest warrant immediately, but the security service is currently saying that it will protect the security, and there are many supporters and opponents of the supporters around it, so it remains to be seen whether it will actually be executed today.

[Anchor]
Arrest warrants are generally executed very quickly, but they were issued on the 31st and two days have passed. Do you think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit took into account the specificity of being a sitting president with such a time difference? What do you think?

[Charge]
The peculiarity of being a sitting president is that he is protected, so there are many difficulties in realistically executing it, so it seems that he continues to consider the timing of execution.

[Anchor]
The search warrant issued along with the arrest warrant said that it can be executed before sunrise, after sunset, and at night, but Oh Dong-woon, head of the Airborne Division, said today. Strict law enforcement will be enforced, but manners will be exhausting. Can this be interpreted as saying that I won't proceed at night?

[Son Jeonghye]
Rather than interpreting it that way, even if we execute a warrant by due process, we show our willingness to execute it to the minimum so that we do not infringe on the president's honor by producing what we call a rope or handcuff. Sending such a message through the media included the will to execute an arrest warrant, but in a way, the president himself wanted to come out and investigate arbitrarily. There is a regulation related to sunset in the arrest warrant only if there is a clear mechanism in our law to make an arrest at sunset or night time. So, in case there is an unavoidable case, it can be considered that a warrant has been issued to execute an arrest warrant even at night.

[Anchor]
If the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit executes an arrest warrant today, what procedures will be taken after the execution?

[Charge]
In the process of executing the warrant, I think we'll notify you of those necessary things, like the Miranda Principles, and probably go inches to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, where we'll probably investigate. And because you can arrest them for 48 hours, so I think you'll have to call them back tomorrow to investigate and then maybe ask for an arrest warrant. So if you don't request an arrest warrant within 48 hours, you have to be released. So I think I need to ask for a warrant and get a warrant.

[Anchor]
In order for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to arrest President Yoon, it has to cross two gates, but first of all, there are some problems with the presidential security agency. What do you think will happen to this part?

[Son Jeonghye]
For now, it seems necessary to do it in principle. There is a law related to security regarding the president. According to the Presidential Security Act, the authority that the security service can do is to maintain order or control access to the minimum extent necessary for security purposes by designating a security zone.

However, as I said earlier, this authority should be limited to the minimum necessary for security purposes, and if it reaches the level of obstructing the execution of arrest warrants by investigative agencies, as I said, there is room for obstruction of public affairs, and the Security Act explicitly stipulates abuse of authority. If the security agency exercises authority other than security, it will be subject to up to five years in prison and a fine of up to 10 million won. If it reaches a level that interferes with the execution of official duties beyond its authority, there is room for additional punishment for abuse of authority, so if there is no threat to the president's personal safety, the security agency has a reasonable obligation as a public official to cooperate in executing a legitimate warrant.

[Anchor]
In fact, there have been some raids that have been canceled due to the refusal of the security service. I'm not going to the president's office. However, the arrest warrant issued by the Western District Court on the 31st contains an exception that the Presidential Security Service cannot prevent the execution of the warrant. How do I view this?

[Charge]
Therefore, in facilities requiring military confidentiality, the warrant cannot be executed without the consent of the person in charge, and consent cannot be refused unless there is a significant harm to the public interest. However, based on this provision, we have not been able to search and seizure in the past Cheong Wa Dae, the presidential office, and the safe house. This clause makes it difficult to execute an arrest warrant and a search warrant to execute the arrest warrant, and the warrant judge stated in the warrant the purpose of excluding the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but this is not authorized in itself. Cannot write such in the
warrant. It's not on the list. And what is this like? For example, the Constitutional Court only examines the unconstitutionality of the law subject to judgment through an unconstitutional legal trial and confirms that it is unconstitutional. Beyond that, I will legislate, so I will enact a law, shouldn't I not do this?

It seems that he has done some kind of overpowering act similar to that. So, for example, a warrant is an arrest warrant is a warrant issued in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and the judge is bound by the law. This is what we call the superiority of the law in the rule of law. You must apply the law, and you don't have the power to choose to apply some laws and not others. However, it is overpowering to make this judgment that arbitrarily excludes the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the authority to judge whether the facility is military confidential and whether it will cause significant harm to the public interest is up to the person in charge of the facility. For example, we should only cancel an administrative disposition because it is illegal in an administrative trial, but it is the same act as the judge's administrative disposition in the direction he wants. So it is very wrong to refuse to comply with President Yoon's execution of such an arrest warrant, and it is appropriate to voluntarily appear at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit for investigation even now, but separately, it does not seem justified to specify that the warrant excludes the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Anchor]
Then, the person in charge of the facility is, for example, the president's official residence in the current situation.

[Charge]
If it were his official residence, he would be the president himself.

[Anchor]
But isn't the president himself the subject of arrest? Can the subject of arrest make such a judgment?

[Charge]
So, the purpose of the judge's exclusion of the application of Articles 110 and 111 when he/she clearly knows that he/she will not consent is, do we agree emotionally? But that's not the power of a judge. So, when the president does not cooperate with the execution of the warrant, it is expected to cause public outrage and play a decisive role in issuing an arrest warrant later. That's how law enforcement is done strictly. So I don't think I can stop the execution of the arrest warrant. This arrest warrant and arrest warrant are a little different, so the arrest warrant means that a person suspected of a serious crime should attend and be investigated when he or she does not comply with the request for attendance by the investigative agency. Arrest warrants are a bit different from that.

Therefore, these arrest warrants were issued and they did not cooperate with the execution of the arrest warrants. In the end, these circumstances, which were said to have not been executed in the end, are very unfavorable to President Yoon when he applies for an arrest warrant later, and if an arrest warrant is issued, this can no longer be prevented by the security service. That's why I think it would be more appropriate to do so according to the due process.

[Anchor]
For now, the professor does not have the power to selectively apply the law to the judge. They said that it's too much. President Yoon's side is also strongly protesting this part, what do you think, lawyer?

[Son Jeong-hye]
There are times when such opinions are expressed, but you can see it like this. While issuing an arrest warrant in the Criminal Procedure Act, the Criminal Procedure Rules state what can be written as a necessary reason for the warrant. It allows you to write down the reason for the seizure and search. Originally, the meaning of an arrest warrant is not knowing where to be at home or in the office when you go to arrest someone. The fact that an arrest warrant has been issued includes the original meaning of being able to enter the place where the person resides and lives, and this case is unique because a person with the status of a president is the subject of an arrest warrant and the place he enters is now a place where the security service refuses to search twice as a place requiring military secrets.

In other words, for an arrest warrant to be effectively executed, it must be scheduled to enter a security office or a place claimed by someone to be a place requiring military secrets, but since it is expected to reject it, this search warrant contains a declarative confirmation that excludes Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the extent necessary for human arrest. In other words, a judge did not apply it to limit a person's rights, but rather to effectively execute a declarative and confirmatory arrest warrant. For example, Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act means that you cannot enter without consent because it is a place that requires military secrets. But now we have an arrest warrant, an arrest warrant to subpoena for investigation, which has nothing to do with military secrets, right? The arrest warrant for President Yoon does not harm military secrets. I think it is rather an arbitrary interpretation that this warrant itself is illegal or invalid on the basis of its confirmatory meaning. In other words, it should be interpreted as an inevitable measure to eliminate the objection that the arrest warrant cannot be executed because it is a military secret place.

[Anchor]
The president's side, as the professor said, expressed the opinion that the judge does not have such authority, and the Supreme Court went one step further to investigate this issue, so that the Western District Court issued an arrest warrant with these exceptions, and that the judge should be excluded from his duties. Is this a legally grounded claim?

[Charge]
There seems to be no legal basis. Lawyer Sohn said earlier that he could write down the reason for the seizure search, but the reason for this search is not to say that. It is the reason for the search and seizure to list how serious the criminal charge of the search and seizure is and how there is a fear of destroying evidence, and to exclude the application of the search and seizure warrant is not the reason for the search and seizure. The reason for the seizure and search itself can be said to be an interpretation contrary to the phrase. So, regarding the issuance of a warrant by the judge now, I think the description of that part is invalid. The
warrant itself is not invalid, it is a matter that cannot be written. And just because you write it down doesn't mean that the judge arbitrarily excludes the application of certain legal provisions. That is why it seems that the effect will be disputed in the future, so is there a legal basis for excluding the judge's duties? I don't think that's right. So I think we can say it in terms of what should I say, a political offensive, or that we will protest everything we can.

[Anchor]
The legal community seems to have different opinions on this part, and President Yoon pointed out that it is an offense without legal basis for the possibility that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will receive support from the police during the execution of the arrest warrant. How do you see this part?

[Charge]
However, in conclusion, I can think a little about that argument, but it doesn't seem to be grounded. Because if you look at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit Act, that's the argument. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the authority to command the investigation into the police, so it is illegal to mobilize a police task force to execute the warrant when executing a warrant or an arrest warrant. That argument doesn't seem to be right. The reason is that according to the Public Offices Act, what is not stipulated in the Public Offices Act is to apply the Criminal Procedure Act. And under the Criminal Procedure Act, when an arrest warrant is executed, a prosecutor directs it and a judicial police officer executes it. And the investigator of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is a judicial police officer. Then, the Judicial Police Officer. So, judicial police have judicial police officers and judicial police officers. So, under the direction of prosecutors and judicial police officers, the judicial police can enforce it. Therefore, there is no problem in itself in mobilizing the judicial police to execute the warrant, but it seems that the police mobilization team is not a judicial police. The task of the police task force seems to be the administrative police in terms of supporting security in relation to this supporting service. It doesn't appear to be a judicial police officer.
So if you look inside the police, it's divided into judicial police and administrative police. So it seems that it is possible to mobilize judicial police to execute warrants, but if you look at the regulations, the administrative rules show that the task itself is the work of the administrative police, so it doesn't seem right to mobilize the police to execute an arrest warrant for that reason.

[Anchor]
You're saying that a clear distinction is needed between whether the National Police Agency is a judicial police or an administrative police, but I'll also ask the lawyer. President Yoon's side now claims that if the task force makes an arrest or executes a search warrant on behalf of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, it can be arrested by any citizen as well as the security service.

[Son Jung-hye]
This seems to be a little more extended interpretation. Currently, there is a need to secure new recruits for the president regarding the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, especially criminal investigations under the Public Prosecutor's Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, and the process of receiving support for the personnel necessary for enforcement under the direction of the prosecutor Lee can be argued if there is room for dispute, but I think it is inappropriate to be arrested by any citizen because it is a sign of no respect for Korea's rule of law or jurisdiction. YTN is explaining all the arguments of various lawyers one by one, but in short, it only points out the problems of the procedure. Whenever peripheral procedures, which may not be essential procedures, are presented one by one, they claim that they are illegal, invalid, or overpowered.

As such, I think the people should interpret that the president is unable to argue for substantive reasons and continuously raises procedural peripheral issues. In other words, there is a problem with the arrest warrant now, instead of claiming that the actual problem is that the military force was used too much to prevent the National Assembly from exercising its power or that it failed to commit unconstitutional or illegal acts that tried to arrest or detain the general public, parliamentary factors or politicians without authority. There is a problem with the task force coming out now. To talk only about these procedures like this can be interpreted as an argument aimed at a time delay in the procedure, so there are not many areas that are advantageous to the people due to the delay in the procedure. Whether it's an impeachment trial or an investigation, it's important to set our constitutional order straight when the guilt is quickly determined and whether the impeachment decision is made or dismissed, but at a time when every minute and every second is important, the court made such vast claims with only procedures and issued an invalid warrant. For example, if you argue that this arrest warrant is invalid, you will request it again after the expiration of the arrest warrant. It is also filed with the Western District Court now and if it becomes a problem, it will be done to the Central District Court. It's very likely that an arrest warrant will be issued. In that case, the claim of invalidity of the law on that part is of no benefit. There's a fundamental sense of skepticism about whether it's reasonable to take such a long time with claims that have no benefit.

[Anchor]
So, it is necessary to look at where the impeachment trial and the investigation into the crime of rebellion began once again. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit warned the Presidential Security Service. Therefore, he warned that if an arrest warrant is executed, it is a crime of obstructing the exercise of the right to abuse authority and obstructing the execution of special public affairs. But why are the two letters special, not obstruction of public affairs?

[Charge]
The general obstruction of public affairs is to interfere with the execution of public affairs by assault or intimidation, or by hierarchies, that is, by deceiving them. Obstruction of the execution of special public affairs refers to violence, intimidation, or hierarchies by exercising the power of groups or multiple powers. So, if several people assault or threaten together, it interferes with the execution of special public affairs, which adds to the sentence. So, in my opinion now, aren't a number of far-right supporters gathering and some of the citizens lying down and obstructing the execution of the warrant? I think we did it together as a warning to these people as well. Because

and the bodyguards are not just one or two, they're joined by a bunch of people, so I think they all used that expression to warn the bodyguards and the general public that they're all trying to undermine this warrant execution with their skills. [Anchor] It's said that there are so many people in front of the presidential residence right now, citizens who favor arresting and impeaching the president and citizens who argue against it, so I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is another gateway to overcome. Isn't it a situation where citizens' assembly and safety are concerned?

[Son Jeonghye]
That's right. I think everyone is worried about it and is currently unable to execute it and is expecting the president to adjust the time or attendance. I can't blame supporters or opponents, but at least I can tell you that physical conflict is not allowed in the constitutional order or in our rule of law, and that political expression should not move in a violent way. The investigation of the president is inevitable. There is a part that needs to be done at any time of the investigation, but you can't continue the rally for a month or two to delay it by a few days or a month or two. You can think of it as a national waste. Even if President Yoon is a supporter who thinks it is very unfair, the unfairness should be done within a procedural and due process within our constitutional order. President, tomorrow is the day to prepare for the defense without investigating like this. It is the preparation date for the impeachment trial of the Constitutional Court, but it cannot proceed like this without submitting a detailed document. I hope that the people of the Republic of Korea will express their opinions while respecting the authority and command of basic constitutional and investigative agencies.

[Anchor]
I think many people were a little surprised yesterday, but President Yoon wrote a letter to his supporters, so it was released. In fact, the fact that martial law troops were put into the NEC in this emergency martial law situation and President Yoon himself said in his statement, have raised suspicions that the president is immersed in far-right YouTube, and among the contents of this letter, he said he was watching his supporters through YouTube. What did you think of this letter, professor?

[Charge]
It was a very concerning story. In the end, the perception of reality itself is very wrong, but in the end, it is not an emergency martial law situation, but it does not meet the requirements, so it can be strongly speculated that the reason for issuing the emergency martial law is also here. Therefore, they do not accurately recognize what the reality of the Republic of Korea is, and they only see the extreme arguments of their extreme supporters, misunderstanding it as if it represents the entire people, and misrecognizing the reality itself. So, most people are very angry about the unconstitutionality of emergency martial law, and there are many aspirations that the process should be carried out quickly to minimize confusion in state affairs. And there is a serious concern that some of these forces who are obstructing the execution of the warrant by holding Taegeukgi in front of the wreaths lined up in Yongsan and supporting President Yoon in front of his official residence may be mistaken as if they are the majority of the people.

[Anchor]
You just saw the letter with the president of Yoon Suk Yeol's signature on it. If you look at the contents, you will fight until the end, and there were many voices of concern that the resistance level of President Yoon's supporters would be higher after seeing this letter.

[Son Jeonghye]
That's the thing that concerns me the most. In particular, if you look at the people who are out here now, there seem to be a lot of elderly people, but there is a regret that it would have been better if President Yoon told them to go home so that they don't lose their health in the cold. It's an evaluation of someone we see in a letter like this. I'd like to talk about responsibility. In the early days of
martial law, some people used this expression to the people. My men are not at fault. My men are not responsible and I will take responsibility because I judged it and the military was used. The president of a country

needs to be responsible. The expression, "I think the president's original appearance is not to make the people come out and fight in this cold, but that the president is responsible for making the people relax at home even a little bit," means that supporters should fight until the end.
Then all these supporters can do is come out in this cold and continue to protest. Is this really about being considerate of supporters? Or is it for your own benefit? I don't think I know.

[Anchor]
Given the situation so far and President Yoon's letter and message, what do you think about the possibility of voluntary attendance?

[Charge]
So, I personally hope that the public aspiration will be to calm all this confusion by coordinating the attendance schedule with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit through a lawyer even now.

[Anchor]
In fact, forced recruitment is a painting that no one wants.

[Charge]
That's right. This is also a matter of national prestige. Should a sitting president be dragged out? Rather than doing so, it would be better to voluntarily attend through a lawyer, but he seems to be unable to attend because he predicts that an arrest warrant will be requested and that he will be arrested the moment he appears at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. So I think there is little possibility of voluntary attendance.

[Anchor]
It's 2:43 p.m. right now. The possibility of a warrant being executed today, what do you think, lawyer?

[Son Jeonghye]
First of all, you'll want to do an airlift. However, since too many people are confronting in front of them, and even some people are likely to be injured due to an armed conflict, there is a possibility that they will continue to coordinate with President Yoon's lawyer until the expiration date ends to persuade him to attend voluntarily. The deadline looks like Saturday or Sunday. I think the possibility of enforcement on Saturday and Sunday is increasing for now.

[Anchor]
If the president is arrested, as you said earlier, an arrest warrant must be requested within 48 hours, but shouldn't the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit be prepared to request an arrest warrant within two days? What questions to ask and what evidence to present. How do you see it?

[Charge]
That's right. So, the charge itself is the head of the rebellion, so isn't it the one who took responsibility for it and planned everything in the end? Then, it seems that we should thoroughly secure statements about important mission workers and simple participants, various CCTVs and evidence, and contrast them with each other so that we can question President Yoon about it when he lies or defecates. If you do that and then ask for an arrest warrant, the criminal charges have been largely cleared, and the arrest warrants have been requested, but they have not been able to execute them properly, which are very disadvantageous in relation to concerns about destruction of evidence and things like this. So, I think there is a high possibility that an arrest warrant will be issued.

[Anchor]
The Constitutional Court is also busy right now. The Constitutional Court, which has two new constitutional judges and has an eight-member system. The impeachment trial of the president of Yoon Suk Yeol will begin in earnest. The news reporter on the Constitutional Court organized it well. Professor, isn't it now an eight-member system with Acting President Choi Sang-mok appointing two constitutional judges? There are eight people, so there is no problem with the justification of the sentence as well as the hearing, right?

[Charge]
That's right. If we do it under an eight-member system, the effect of Article 23 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act has been suspended, but the clause, which allows more than seven people to attend before being politicized, has no problem even if it takes effect. And if eight people make a decision, it won't be possible for all nine people to fill the quota, but that doesn't matter if it's eight people. So, even during the impeachment of President Park Geun Hye, one was vacant, so eight people made a decision. So it can be seen that there is no problem.

[Anchor]
Now that there are eight judges, the impeachment trial of the president will speed up, and among the eight judges, judges Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-sun will retire on April 18 this year. So, before that, there is a prospect that a conclusion will come out, so what do you think?

[Son Jeonghye]
The Constitutional Court's official position was to proceed quickly, and the speed is relatively fast now, so a sentence can be made even in March without going until April, and I think the end of February can be expected if it is done very quickly. The rationale is that there is a possibility that considerable evidence has been collected, and the evidence alone is likely to fully acknowledge the specific reasons for the impeachment trial, such as the serious reasons for dismissal and the reason for betraying the public's trust.

Accordingly, the second hearing preparation date will be held tomorrow, January 3rd, and even today, the second hearing preparation date, no specific written answer has been issued from the respondent. So, even if there is no such specific answer, the Constitutional Court's hearing process will proceed quickly in the set procedure, so there is a possibility that data necessary for sentencing will be collected at the end of March and February, not April 18.

[Anchor]
What are the main procedures for tomorrow's 2nd hearing preparation period?

[Son Jeonghye]
There was not much practical discussion during the first hearing preparation period. The reason was that it ended in about 40 minutes, and the respondent pointed out the procedural argument, that is, the degree of procedural illegality of service, because there was no proper preparation, so there is room for the second hearing to be a very important deadline. I think we need to sort out the issues first. In the case of former President Park Geun Hye, the issue was largely organized into five sub-categories. Since this issue has also been interpreted as a matter that can be summarized into more than four or five issues, it is necessary to organize the issues, how to collect evidence for each issue, and the evidence is to decide where to send facts and send opinions during the opinion inquiry period, and to what extent to apply for witnesses and references, and to whom to adopt and summon witnesses, so if it does not end up in the 2nd hearing preparation period, there is room for three sessions, but it is a place to make various procedural plans to be made on the hearing date in the future.

[Anchor]
The main content was that President Yoon was not prepared much during the first hearing preparation period, and as you can see in the breaking news of the Constitutional Court earlier, President Yoon did not submit additional documents or responses to the Constitutional Court. Tomorrow is the 2nd hearing preparation period, but isn't the response delayed and these things working against President Yoon's side?

[Charge]
It's quite a disadvantage. Since the National Assembly has a large number of prosecutors and a large number of agents, if President Yoon does not submit such an answer or make any claims on the day of pleading tomorrow, wouldn't the unilateral prosecution only be reflected? It's very unfavorable to them, so I guess they'll submit it on-site tomorrow or something like that, and there's a possibility that we'll discuss various things while submitting the evidence list tomorrow. However, it seems to be a considerable problem that they are not coping fairly quickly now.

[Anchor]
Professor, if you look at the story from the Constitutional Court earlier, you will start reviewing the suspension of the validity of President Yoon's arrest warrant. How do you see this part?

[Charge]
So, the validity of the warrant is January 6th. It is quite questionable whether the full court will be able to judge the main issue by January 6, and if the suspension of effect is imposed, will it be possible to make a decision over the weekend and by Friday after a judge's review on Monday? That's also unknown. The two of you took office today. So this is probably if the same problem can happen in the future, we can decide on the main issue later, but it's meaningless if we don't decide on the injunction to suspend the effect by the 6th, it's useless. So I think we have to wait and see if it means we will be sentenced by the 6th, but I think the time is very short.

[Anchor]
There are also comments that President Yoon has applied for a competency dispute trial on this issue, but there are also opinions that this does not constitute a competency dispute. What do you think about that?

[Charge]
So it's a question of what to use to hold the infringing authority. According to yesterday's report, Yoon's attorney, Yoon Gap-geun, claimed that martial law declaration rights were violated, and it is highly likely to be dismissed. This is because the right to declare martial law is not infringed, nor is there a risk of infringement. However, it seems theoretically possible to argue that Article 84 of the Constitution violated the president's criminal and fluoridative privileges. Even if his/her duties are suspended, he/she maintains his/her current status as president and Article 84 of the Constitution is a privilege to maintain as long as his/her status is maintained, so the court's trial that issued an arrest warrant to such an investigative agency without the right to investigate violated the president's criminal privileges. If he/she claims that he/she has requested a trial for a dispute over authority and requested a temporary suspension of validity, then it can be seen as meeting the legal requirements for the dispute, but as I said, is it beneficial? Unless it is possible to make a decision on the main issue within the validity period of the warrant, then the provisional disposition for suspension of effect is also premised on the main issue. So I think it's quite likely to be dismissed.
[Anchor]
First of all, I think we need to see what the 2nd hearing will be about tomorrow. To talk a little more about the Constitution, it is said that after Acting Constitutional Court Justice Choi Sang-mok appointed two constitutional judges, there was considerable opposition from the members of the State Council. It should be appointed by agreement between
and some of them exceed their authority, so what do you think about the legal aspect of Choi Sang-mok's overstepping authority?

[Son Jeonghye]
An act that exceeds an authority is called an act of exceeding authority. However, the Constitutional Court's interpretation is that the acting president can appoint a constitutional judge, and I also have a very self-evident interpretation, so I exercised my authority within the exercise of my authority and went through the process of legally appointing it, not overstepping it, but I think the members of the State Council misinterpreted why they didn't communicate with us. However, in the end, the decision maker who makes a decision can decide on the issue of the president's authority under our constitutional order, so even if communication was insufficient, such claims as illegal or unjust appear to be insufficient. On the contrary, since the part of not fulfilling constitutional obligations is a legal problem, I think acting authority Lee should respect it as a decision made after consideration.

[Anchor]
It is said that the acting director Choi Sang-mok himself also said that he has an aspect of overpower, what is your opinion?

[Charge]
As lawyer Sohn said earlier, my personal opinion is that the nomination of the chief justice or the selection of the National Assembly is a passive status quo authority that can be appointed by the acting president, except for the three judges of the Constitutional Court. So if you elect three people in the National Assembly, I think you have a constitutional obligation to appoint them. Therefore, the appointment itself is not an excess because it is the fulfillment of constitutional obligations, but procedurally, it must be deliberated by the State Council, but it must be presented as an agenda before the State Council deliberation. However, there seems to have been a procedural defect in that part. However, just because there was such a defect, it does not mean that the appointed act itself is ineffective or anything like that, so it can be seen as a minor defect.

[Anchor]
National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik is considering asking for a power dispute trial for acting Choi Sang-mok's decision, what does this mean?

[Son Jeonghye]
So, I think that appointing only two out of three violated the authority. The aspect is that the National Assembly seeks in the form of a dispute trial that the right was violated because the acting authority did not fulfill its constitutional obligations, or obligations to do, despite the fact that the National Assembly has carried out all the necessary procedures for appointment by resolution. As you said, the procedure for appointing judges now is that we usually have discretionary and attributable acts among administrative acts, and binding acts must be followed unconditionally.
I'm arguing for infringement of rights in this part, why did you only do two people with one person because you didn't do such an act? Currently, there are reports of at least one or two lawsuits for confirming the unconstitutionality of omission. There is a procedural system in which citizens whose rights are violated because they do not play the role that administrative or constitutional institutions should play can file a lawsuit to confirm the unconstitutionality of omission.

In other words, if the people's right to claim a constitutional trial is violated by not appointing nine constitutional judges properly, even this can be subject to constitutional complaints. And I would like to tell you that it was a realistic and effective way to guarantee the people's right to claim a trial for many people as a whole rather than leaving the current constitutional judge vacant.

[Anchor]
As the unprecedented situation continues, there are many legal issues. I pointed it out with the two of you. Professor Cha Jin-ah of Korea University School of Law and lawyer Son Jeong-hye were with
Thank you.