For the first time ever in the Constitution, an arrest warrant for a sitting president...Keep fighting for the bodyguard.

■ Host: Anchor Park Seok-won, Anchor Um Ji-min
■ Starring: Lawyer Seo Jeong-bin, Reporter Shin Gwi-hye

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

[Anchor]
Next, let's point out the legal proceedings, issues, and the newly reported content again with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin and reporter Shin Gwi-hye. As expected, the confrontation between the police and the presidential security seems to continue so far. I think there were some physical fights earlier, what did you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, it was quite questionable whether the security service would respond or oppose the warrant in the process of actual execution. In the end, given the situation so far, it seems that the security service is protesting to some extent, and according to the report, there was a physical fight at the security service after trying to pass through the second cordon. So, as people expected, the execution of the warrant itself is a little difficult. So it seems to be taking a little time.

[Anchor]
The security chief is not allowing the search. By the way, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit sent a warning letter saying, "Don't block the execution of the warrant," but is there a legal basis for the security office to prevent it like this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The legal basis is, after all, poor. The security agency has already stated that it can be prevented on the basis of harm to the president, who is the subject of such security because it is a security zone under the Security Act, for example. In fact, such information can be used as a basis for security activities when there is such illegal harm, but it is not well-founded to judge that it is for the purpose of executing a court-issued warrant and to prevent it to carry out security.

Other than that, according to Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the person in charge of confiscating and searching places requiring military secrets or items related to confidential information of public officials can be prevented, but that means that the person in charge of the search needs approval. This situation is not a search and seizure, but a search to execute an arrest warrant.

Therefore, it is difficult to say that the relevant regulations are applied, and if so, even if you look at the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, it seems that the legal basis for interfering with the execution of these arrest warrants and necessary searches is quite poor. [Anchor] The way he refuses to comply with the execution of search and arrest warrants, the security service, but also about President Yoon. What kind of legal treatment is possible?

[Jeongbin Seo]
As the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has already sent an official letter saying that if you interfere with these things, you can eventually be punished for obstructing the execution of public affairs. So, of course, there may be moments when there may be harm to the president in the process of security, for example, in the process of execution, so there is no problem with security activities, but if you exercise physical force beyond that, you can eventually be convicted of obstructing the execution of public affairs. For reference, cases of obstructing public affairs through assault or intimidation are punished in obstruction of public affairs, and the concept of assault referred to there is quite broad.

So in addition to the physical force that really harms you, it seems to be somewhat passive, and the way we generally see that it's assault can also be assault. For example, even in cases where the police lie on a patrol car and interfere with the police's duties in performing their duties, it was ruled that it was also an assault equivalent to obstruction of justice. That's why if this interference continues, as I said earlier, the problem of obstruction of justice can eventually be established.

[Anchor]
Reporter Shin Gwi-hye, the president of Yoon Suk Yeol is claiming that the arrest warrant itself is illegal or invalid. What grounds do you have?

[Reporter]
Yoon's side points out that the Western District Court's warrant judge issued an arrest warrant requested by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which has no authority to investigate the crime of rebellion, and that the Criminal Procedure Act is an exception. Therefore, the Supreme Court is arguing that the judge who issued the warrant should be investigated, and that duty exclusion and disciplinary action should be taken. So, in defiance of the issuance of the warrant, he applied for a power dispute trial and a provisional injunction for suspension of validity to the Constitutional Court, and yesterday filed an objection to the court, asking for the execution of the warrant itself.

[Anchor]
If you insist on something illegal and hold out until the end, is there a way for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to force this to come out?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, it's possible. If an arrest warrant is issued and executed, the door can be forcibly opened if such a target is in somewhere, or such incidental measures can be implemented even if there is no warrant. So if this state is left unattended, if it continues, forced opening is possible. It's possible under
law, but wouldn't it be a little difficult to decide whether to actually exercise these things in the current situation or whether the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will actually execute them? I think there will be some difficulties due to practical problems.

[Anchor]
Because I'm a sitting president. Today is the 3rd, and now the 4th, 5th, and 6th after the weekend are the execution period of the arrest warrant. If we fail to get the President of Yoon Suk Yeol's recruits today, is there a chance that we will try again tomorrow and Sunday over the weekend?

[Jungbin Seo]
You can try again with this arrest warrant because the execution of the warrant has not been completed. That's why I think I can try it again tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Of course, this is not a legal part, but anyway, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit believes that if it is not executed, it will not stop there, and even if it takes a little time, it will be executed again at least the day after tomorrow to show it even if it is not actually executed. If it is not executed in the end, whether to request another arrest warrant or an arrest warrant remains, and this process, which means that there has been a constant interference in the execution of the arrest warrant, so the failure to execute it, can be a reasonable circumstance when requesting such a warrant in the future. That's why I'm thinking that I'll try at least once again.

[Anchor]
If President Yoon secures a recruit today, what will happen next?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, we will move to Gwacheon Government Complex, where the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is located. In normal cases, they will move in a convoy, but since he is the president, I think there will be some consultation with the security service about this movement process. First of all, if we move, the investigation is expected to proceed immediately. So, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit building will start an investigation, and the contents of the questionnaire that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is preparing for now are said to be more than 200 pages. To predict, the contents are written in great detail and the amount is quite large, and I think it can be explained that way by comparing them with other events. If so, the investigation time is expected to be considerably longer. Intensive investigations are expected to proceed, but if such investigations are completed, or if they take a break in the middle and investigate the next day, President Yoon will move to the Seoul Detention Center, wait, and then come back to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit if an investigation is needed.

[Anchor]
It's the first time in constitutional history that an investigation into the incumbent president is being conducted. Who will proceed with this investigation?

[Reporter]
Since the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is an investigation of the incumbent president, discussions were held to ensure respect. Therefore, it was decided that Cha Jung-hyun, the chief prosecutor who directly requested the arrest warrant, and Lee Dae-hwan, the chief prosecutor, would participate in the investigation. In addition, since the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is setting up a joint investigation headquarters with the police, there is a possibility that officials from the special police investigation team will participate in this.

[Anchor]
If an investigation by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is conducted now on this part of the charge of abuse of authority and civil war, which part do you think should be the most focused on revealing?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, there may be a situation where you may have to request an arrest warrant later, so you will have to conduct an intensive investigation as much as possible within that 48-hour period. So you won't be able to investigate everything completely from start to finish, and eventually you'll be asking questions about the main issues related to the alleged rebellion. In particular, there are opinions expressed by the president in a statement regarding the alleged civil war, and a lot of statements from such officials that seem to contradict or contradict them are being revealed. In the end, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will determine President Yoon's position and whether this is true based on statements made by the media or investigations, and on the other hand, President Yoon answered such questions and said, "It is not an allegation of rebellion." So, wouldn't it be possible to make a substantial statement on the process of declaring martial law and what the purpose was? In this way, we will investigate important matters within 48 hours, and then we will investigate in more detail when this discussion took place in the process of declaring martial law or specifically what happened in this situation.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the prosecution have divided the investigation records for the alleged rebellion. Is there a possibility that this part will be a variable?

[Jeongbin Seo]
If you investigate with all the records in one place, it will proceed smoothly because you can ask specific questions with more specific data during the interrogation process of the suspect, but if you have separate records now, it may be difficult to expect specific detailed questions and statements because the amount of information is small. Therefore, in the end, there is a clear need for the prosecution to secure such data through cooperation in conducting an investigation by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit.

[Anchor]
So far, I'll sort out the situation a little bit. At around 6:14 a.m. today, the vehicle of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit left the Gwacheon Government Complex. About an hour later, at 7:21, I arrived in front of the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul. More than 2,700 police troops were mobilized. The barricade opened in front of the official residence just after 8 o'clock. And after getting off the vehicle, the investigators passed through the main gate of the official residence, but are now confronting the security service after passing the first and second cordons. We've been in a standoff for more than three and a half hours,
. Reporter Shin Gwi-hye, let's summarize today's process.

[Reporter]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit entered the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Seoul at 8 a.m. today and began attempting to execute an arrest warrant for President Yoon. Earlier today, at around 6:15 am, YTN reporters caught a vehicle carrying public prosecutors from the Gwacheon Government Complex. I entered Hannam-dong residence in about two hours. At the site of the execution of the warrant, 150 people from the Joint Chiefs of Staff were deployed. It has been confirmed that there are about 30 people from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and 120 people from the police special team. In the process of entering, our camera captured that there was also a physical fight at the iron door at the entrance to the official residence. However, the police have broken through the first and second cordons and have now approached the official residence.

He is requesting cooperation by presenting a warrant to the head of the security service, but the head of the security service is blocking him by citing the security area under the Security Act. [Anchor] Reporter Shin just told me about the 1st and 2nd cordons, so please explain how the 1st cordon and the 2nd cordon are different here. [Journalist] The primary cordon appears to be the car wall near the iron gate and the security personnel. So first, the police passed the personnel and went up a little further to the official residence, and on the way to our reporters' cameras, I saw a car wall built by a bus, and it was found that it had penetrated through it, so now I have entered right in front of the official residence.

[Anchor]
I'm showing you the presidential residence on the screen at this time. If we explain the level of security, the police 202 guard is in charge of the outside of the presidential residence. The interior is handled by the Presidential Security Service and the 55th Guard Corps. So the police 202 guard is the first cordon and the water radiation 55 guard is believed to be the second cordon, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think so. In the situation revealed so far, it seems that there are even the first, second, and third cordons internally, but it seems that the security team is guarding the first and the second.

[Anchor]
I think there's only a super close-up bodyguard left. When you say super close-up security, you mean the kind of security team that doesn't even touch the president's hair?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. Unlike other police or soldiers, the security agency is very close to the president, so this also serves as a security guard in everyday situations, so how will the security agency come out in executing this warrant? In the case of police or soldiers, the warrant is being executed now because they said they would come out cooperatively as expected from the beginning, but in the end, we are watching how the closest security guards will come out.

[Anchor]
According to reporter Shin's comment a while ago, isn't there a little physical conflict while showing the video live? There were a few scenes that I could be concerned about. If a physical conflict like this occurs, can't you also be held legally liable?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has already sent an official letter.It has already stated its position that if it physically interferes with the execution of the warrant, it will constitute a crime of obstructing the execution of public affairs, and it is legally possible. In order for a crime of obstruction of public affairs to be established, there must be an act of obstructing public affairs by assault or intimidation, and the assault referred to here is a fairly broad concept, so it is possible to obstruct public affairs by exercising physical force. However, in reality, it is expected that such obstruction will not proceed so far as to whether it will lead to further investigation or prosecution. Since the targets are the president and employees of the president's security agency, actual investigations and prosecutions are unlikely to continue to the extent that they interfere, but if the time is too long or if there is any active physical force, I think that the crime will be considered a little realistically.

[Anchor]
You explained the obstruction of public affairs, but some say that the crime of obstructing the execution of special public affairs can also be established. How are these two different?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Obstruction of public affairs can be regarded as a general form of crime, and if several people interfere with public affairs through multiple powers, it can be aggravated, so a special offense of obstruction of public affairs can be established. In the current situation, there are several security officials, so if you collectively interfere with public affairs, you can eventually obstruct the execution of special public affairs individually.

[Anchor]
The lawyer explained in detail the obstruction of the execution of public affairs under Article 136 of the Criminal Code and the obstruction of the execution of special public affairs under Article 144. For example, Article 5 or Article 19 of the Presidential Security Service provides security for the presidential security, and there are voices of concern that the security service staff can be punished, but there is a precedent like this. In the past, Hanwha Group Chairman Kim Seung-yeon was accused of slush funds, and there were cases where employees of security companies who prevented the seizure and search of the headquarters were sentenced to trial. However, the case of Hanwha Group and the president is different, so how should this be interpreted?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Basically, if it interferes with the execution of the warrant in the end, it should be considered that anyone who is subject to obstruction by physical force can be convicted of obstruction of public affairs. So, even in the case you mentioned now, such obstruction was eventually sentenced to prison for obstructing the execution of public affairs. However, if there is a difference, for example, the employees who interfere with the execution of such a private company's chairman are not public officials, but are employed by private companies, so there is no legal basis to prevent the execution of the warrant.

In this situation, the security service cannot explain that the grounds are sufficient, but this is clearly different from the law that occurs in relation to private companies or private persons because it is the subject of security under the Security Act and takes place within the security zone. So, if these parts are problematic, even if the obstruction of the execution of the warrant is illegal, could the parties, that is, the security service staff, be sure of it and obstruct it? Or was there a little difficulty in recognizing such illegality to some extent because there were grounds under the Security Act? There can definitely be a difference in these areas.

[Anchor]
Earlier, we delivered the news that the head of the security department presented an arrest warrant to the head of the security department, but the head of the security department refused to search. Don't block the execution of the warrant, I wrote it like this, but is there a clear legal basis for this now?

[Jeongbin Seo]
After all, regardless of the warrant stating that the search should not be prevented, if such an arrest warrant is issued, the security agency must approve it unless there is a special reason.

[Anchor]
Can't we stop them even if they don't mention it?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. Compared to the seizure and search warrant, Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulate that the approval of the person in charge is required when confiscating a place or item related to military confidentiality in connection with seizure or search. The current situation was that a search for arrest was underway, not for seizure. Therefore, even if there was no such phrase in the arrest warrant, that is, this Article 110 does not apply, the security agency cannot prevent it based on these regulations. The fact that this phrase is actually written is controversial. Because there is no regulation that such a phrase can be written, there is a question of whether there is something legal wrong with a judge issuing such a warrant, but apart from that, the chief of security should respond to this, as an arrest warrant was issued. I think it's right to look at it like this.

[Anchor]
You expected that it would not affect the execution of the arrest warrant itself, but anyway, the judge issued an arrest warrant and excluded the application of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is a debate about the inclusion of this clause. Reporter Shin Gwi-hye, there's never been such a case.

[Reporter]
That's right. There are many interpretations in the legal profession that this is unprecedented. So President Yoon's side is raising the issue based on this. The first point of President Yoon's questioning is that he issued an arrest warrant requested by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which has no authority to investigate the civil war, and the second is that he pointed out the exception of the criminal law that the lawyer said earlier. Therefore, President Yoon's side argues that the judge who issued the warrant should be investigated, and that he should exclude his duties and even take disciplinary action. President Yoon's side applied for a power dispute trial and an injunction to suspend the validity of the warrant to the Constitutional Court, and yesterday filed an objection with the court, asking the court to disallow the execution of the warrant itself.

[Anchor]
Leaving the legality of the procedure behind a little bit now, anyway, an arrest warrant has been issued and enforcement is being attempted, right? By the way, if I stopped this, could I not actually be punished for this warrant being issued illegally later?

[Jeongbin Seo]
It seems difficult to do that. It is true that this phrase is controversial, but personally, this phrase is seen as adding unnecessary statements, and just because it is written, it is illegal in the overall issuance of a warrant or execution process. So the evidence that comes out after that doesn't seem to be illegal enough to rule out the effect.

Therefore, whether this warrant is actually executed or not, I don't think the controversy that the phrase is written in the future investigation will have a particular impact on itself, but I think President Yoon will argue that there is a problem with the entire investigation when the overall flow of the investigation process is combined with any illegal or problematic parts.

[Anchor]
This is not the only legal battle, and since President Yoon does not have comprehensive authority to conduct investigations into the police in the Airborne Division Act, the prosecutor and investigator of the Airborne Division should conduct arrest or search warrants themselves. In other words, it is argued that the prosecutor should not come forward directly. On the other hand, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit refutes Article 17 of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit Act, for example, that it can cooperate with the National Police Agency for investigation. What do you think the workshop will be like in the future?

[Jeongbin Seo]
It is expected that President Yoon will continue to take issue with this part now and in the future. In the end, since it is about the overall illegality or illegality in the investigation process of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, these claims are expected to continue in the future, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is expected to fully assert its legality. In addition to the regulations used as a basis, in the case of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the relevant law considers the authority of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to be the same as that of the general prosecutor. If so, the prosecutor has the authority to direct the police in executing these warrants, so we expect the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to argue this and refute it.

[Anchor]
As you said this time, President Yoon claims that the issuance of the arrest warrant itself is invalid, but if he continues to hold out in the official residence, is there any way to force him to come out on a legal basis?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The Criminal Procedure Act regulates such actions without a warrant when executing an arrest warrant. Therefore, it stipulates that necessary measures can be taken, including forcing the locked door open, so if it does not come out legally, you can use force to open the door and enter. However, in reality, it is questionable whether such an appearance will be seen at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit.

[Anchor]
If the execution fails, there is a possibility that the retry will continue, so will the power related to the execution be more revived than the first time when the retry goes in? Or will it die down?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, I think this can be different for each personal judgment, but I personally think the power will be revived. First of all, the process of executing this warrant is being reported, and if the warrant is requested again when it is not executed, I think the public opinion will understand the position of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit a little more through these reports, so if I execute the warrant again or make a request again, I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will be able to move more actively.

[Anchor]
Yoon's supporters, nearly 10,000 supporters have gathered in front of the Hannam-dong residence since last night to block the execution of the warrant. In the past, supporters interfered with the execution of warrants, so securing recruits was canceled, right?

[Reporter]
That's right. Yoon's supporters have continued to protest in front of his residence. Yesterday, there were a lot of supporters, so the police deployed a noticeable number of troops in the afternoon rather than in the morning. Even today, there were images of the car wall stretching from one layer to two layers.

[Anchor]
In the past, in the case of former Democratic Party Chairman Han Hwa-gap or former Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker Lee In-je in 2004, the execution of the warrant failed due to the blocking of party members.