[On-site video +] President Yoon's deputies... "If you did something wrong, you should quit, but you should fight with evidence."

[Anchor]
In a little while, from 2 p.m., the second hearing preparation period for President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial will begin.

The representatives of President Yoon are also expected to attend today to give a detailed position on the reasons for impeachment,

connects to the time constitutional court site.

[Bae Jinhan/President Yoon's representative]
Today is the procedural and preparatory date, so we will fight fiercely on the procedural part. And as you know, in order for ordinary public officials to be dismissed, they thoroughly investigate evidence through administrative litigation. Isn't the president now the commander-in-chief of our country, who was elected by elections for four or five months to the extent that the country was turned upside down? He's the head of the company. However, even if a constitutional judge retires in a few months without proper investigation of evidence, we will not use the expression "baffling" without the evidence investigation we want.

But anyway, if it ends so quickly, it would be against common sense. The law is that common sense, logic, and rules of experience are applied like flesh on the bones.
You only need to do it on that basis. If the president did anything wrong, of course he should quit. But don't you think it's really wrong? Shouldn't you argue thoroughly as evidence? I think journalists will probably sympathize with that, and I dare to say this, but I think it started with the question of why our human history has come this far. Why? Why did the president do this when he could control the country peacefully if he remained silent? There's no media interested in why.

No matter why we try to express it, it's emergency, so leave. Since we're in the media like this, we also have a quarrel with the media. Please think about that. I think it's better not to use the expression "civil war." We're not on the same page. If you want to see whether it is unconstitutional or not, why do you start with why this procedure was carried out and then eventually the precedent doesn't say? It is said to judge whether it is a national constitution by looking at both the circumstances and the results.

It's not what I said here, so I won't comment further. I'm not trying to say this is justified or not. Justifiable or not is what the court does. What I'm talking about here is in the hope that the media will be interested in other areas as well.

[Reporter]
Are you going to continue to reject the arrest warrant?

[Bae Jinhan/President Yoon's representative]
I'll see you in court.