The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit failed to secure President Yoon's recruits...Impeachment trial, except for rebellion?

■ Host: Anchor Chung Chae-woon, Anchor Cho Ye-jin
■ Starring: Attorney Kim Sung-hoon

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

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit started to execute an arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol, but eventually stopped the execution of the warrant after being blocked by the security service.

[Anchor]
Attention is drawn to the choice of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which has entered the breathtaking process for the next step.

[Anchor]
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court has decided to enter the formal hearing process on the 14th after the second hearing preparation period. Let's go over it with the experts. Attorney Kim Sung-hoon is here. Please come in.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit moved from dawn yesterday, but the execution of the warrant was ultimately canceled after a five-and-a-half-hour confrontation. It's been a five-and-a-half-hour confrontation, and everything is unusual, but how does it compare to the usual execution process of arrest warrants?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
The execution of arrest warrants is basically the state-level authorization to detain people under warrants issued by the judiciary, and the investigative agency executes them with it. Therefore, it is shocking that the execution of an arrest warrant is rejected or denied by physical force. Secondly, it is also historically unparalleled in that the subject who refused to execute it was not the cause of death, but the public officials of the state agency who blocked it. There are cases where the execution of warrants for politicians, supporters of politicians or businessmen has sometimes been blocked by the physical force of private individuals.Ma understands this is the first time, to my knowledge, that a public official of a state agency has blocked the execution of a warrant issued by the judiciary.

[Anchor]
In the end, you can say that you are blocked by the security service, but from the perspective of the security service, you are in this position that you have performed your duties according to the security law, right?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
That's right. However, basically, the concept of security itself is defined in the Act on Security such as the President. An act to prevent harm to the life or property of a person subject to security is called security. Anti-hazard, what kind of things are there? It's called security to prevent injury or murder. Is the issuance of an arrest warrant and the subsequent execution causing harm? I don't think that's how it's viewed. Because basically, it's not for law enforcement to proceed with that legal process based on a warrant issued by the judiciary. In particular, the president's constitutional status as a president is not because he has a lot of privileges and, above all, he is special in the law on security. It is the subject of security accordingly because it is entrusted with the representative authority of the people and is responsible for the protection of the constitution.

However, in the case of civil war and foreign exchange crimes, the exception is made to the privilege of fluoridation, and the core of this charge is the crime of civil war. That's why, in the end, you don't have the power to reject the investigation of rebellion, even if you're a president, or even if you're in office. In conclusion, the arrest warrant itself is the judiciary's judgment that human arrests can be made in the process of investigating this part of our investigative agency. It's not a judge's judgment, it's a judgment of the legal order of our Republic of Korea. However, in fact, it is not conceptually consistent with the concept of security to prevent it because it is for the purpose of its execution. If that happens, the security law is above the constitution. Right? There is a security law, so you can't do any legal procedures because you're the subject of security. Being able to investigate is being able to do things that involve personal detention or investigation, but the constitution allows investigation and prosecution, and it can be said that the security service rejected it and rejected it physically.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said yesterday that it had suspended the execution of the warrant for the safety of the site. In the process of crossing the cordon, large and small physical fights continued, and there were also personnel with personal firearms among the security personnel. But I heard that the security personnel were a little more numerically superior. How should I look at this part?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
In my opinion, even from the point of view of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the security service is not a soldier group. Basically, it seems that people who have public offices that perform the legal functions of the state did not think much that they would physically block the execution of arrest warrants.

[Anchor]
Are you saying you wouldn't have expected to build up to the 3rd cordon?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
That's right. And if you expected it, you wouldn't have thought it would be because it could actually show that the bodyguard is out of legal control and has become a voluntary organization that resists it physically. But that's what happened. As I said earlier, this issue is a constitution that stipulates that in the case of civil war and foreign exchange crimes under our Constitution, the president can be prosecuted even if he is in office. It was the decisive scene of whether it could be kept or not. If you don't continue to respond to the investigation in this way based on the security rights, which is one of the privileges of the president. I didn't even attend.

Apart from talking about where the right to investigate is now, the investigation itself is invalid, nothing is wrong, it is the quasi-action of anti-state forces. In this situation, if nothing is done about the investigation to reveal the actual truth and the legal action itself to enforce it is blocked by the Presidential Protection Act, the provision in our Constitution that prosecution can be carried out for civil war and foreign exchange crimes is practically nullified. However, I think that the law on security, such as the president, is not above the constitution.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit pointed out that they would not have expected the same level of security and the size of security as yesterday, but they pointed out that if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit had a will to secure recruits, it should have taken more people with various scenarios. Therefore, what do you think about the fact that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has stopped its first attempt to execute it, and that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is building a justification for the next step?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
There's a possibility of that. In the end, the security service is responding in that way. If so, it is said that he has now been booked on charges of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. Then, he could have been arrested as a current offender for obstructing the execution of special public affairs, but he won't do it for now in preparation for the physical conflict that occurred in the process, but I don't think we can rule out the possibility of investigating and arresting various legal procedures for obstruction of special public affairs in the future.

[Anchor]
However, legal disputes continue over the arrest warrant itself. Regarding the exception of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the warrant, President Yoon's representatives and the ruling party say that this is the authority of the judge in charge of the warrant. What do you think about this part?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
In the end, if you think about the essential parts and various contents of the contents step by step, Article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act says military secrets and confiscation. Article 111 says official secrets and confiscation. What is confiscation? The procedure to forcibly take the goods and secure them as evidence of the subject of investigation is confiscated. I'm doing a search to confiscate. Both basically say that in the process of disposing of objects, that is, forcing the investigative agency to dispose of objects, it should be done with the consent of the person in charge in relation to military secrets or official secrets. But what came out now was each paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 states that unless there is a significant national interest, the person in charge should accept this.

I think we can divide it into two. The first thing is, arrest warrants and things like that are about human beings. If you can't hide out of a place, you'll have to search. If you have to search and if Articles 110 and 111 are widely applied to areas related to personal arrest, such as the execution of arrest warrants, then military reserves are not the only presidential residence. Then, the execution of arrest warrants can be virtually blocked by that clause for the number of people in it. I don't think I predicted those things. So it's natural that Articles 100 and 110 don't apply in the process of arrest warrants, and it seems that they may have written that part in the warrant in anticipation of legal disputes about that part as well.

In other words, rather than arbitrarily excluding the application of the law, it can be said that the legal interpretation was included in it to confirm the possibility of actual enforcement, fearing that there would be a legal dispute about whether the applicable provisions would apply to the execution of the arrest warrant. Second, there is basically no provision in this process that an arrest warrant can be rejected as a military or official secret in the execution of an arrest warrant. As an inevitable process of issuing an arrest warrant in a situation where it is nowhere to be found, a search must be carried out in addition to the warrant, but as I said earlier, there are paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraph 1 requires the consent of the person in charge. Paragraph 2 states that this should not be rejected unless there is a significant national interest. Who will judge this? In the end, it is the judiciary's decision to determine which issue this issue is between paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding the law. If the chief of security decides arbitrarily, the chief of security is above paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It's completely discretionary. It is believed that the court's warrant may be completely neutralized at its discretion. Basically, it seems that there is no legal provision to prevent the execution of an arrest warrant in this case, and of course, a search must be a prerequisite for executing an arrest warrant, but it is not appropriate to reject it simply because it is a presidential residence. In the end, I think the subject of this judgment should be the judiciary.

[Anchor]
President Yoon and the lawyers seem to have a different opinion now. Before the execution of the warrant, President Yoon's side had filed a dispute trial and a provisional injunction for suspension of the validity to the Constitutional Court, but can this be considered a legitimate objection procedure?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
First of all, I don't think the power dispute is right. The reason is basically that an arrest warrant itself is issued to an individual, a suspect, not a presidential position. A dispute over authority is made when there is a dispute over authority between constitutional institutions under the constitution. Basically, even if you're a president, the president, the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, is basically one of the people who can be subject to investigation and trial of legal proceedings. In particular, while in office, he has the privilege to remove fluoride, but the privilege disappears for the charges of rebellion and foreign exchange. In that regard, I don't think it's actually reasonable to have a constitutional dispute over authority in conducting rhetorical procedures. What's more essential than Articles 110 and 111 before is the question of whether we'll respond to the investigation in this case. The investigative power is not in the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. The arrest warrant is problematic. I think it's all good.

You have to reveal the real truth. It is the process of investigation, prosecution, and trial to reveal the actual truth and organize legal procedures according to the actual truth because there is confusion and confusion over whether the lawmakers were really asked to pull out, break the door with an axe, arrest, arrest representative Han Dong-hoon or these people. I didn't comply with any subpoenas from either agency. I think it is showing a strong attitude that will not respond in the future. Now that this is the subject of investigation, I have no intention of cooperating in the process of revealing the actual truth as a person of the people. After the presidency, one by one, we're arguing over this, and we're arguing over this, and we're talking about a lot of legal things. In conclusion, I think it comes down to whether or not to cooperate with the discovery of substantive truth itself according to the basic procedure of the democratic republic of investigation.
The bottom line is that everything that investigates me is wrong because it is not a subject of investigation at all, there are no problems at all, it is a non-emergency and an act of governance.

To be honest, I think that's what the lawyers said. We will not accept anything because all these are illegal investigations and illegal impeachment. There is no obligation to comply with the President because he is above all enforcement procedures under the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Korea. I think it would be better to be honest like this. But the conclusion is for that purpose, but in the process between them, we continue to talk about the rule of law while talking about some provisions and things like this. The core of the rule of law is the inch in the opposite direction of the rule of law. It's not domination over a particular person, it's domination by the system. It can be seen that the basic core is that everyone follows the system and subjugates to it. In that respect, the part about the arrest warrant we're talking about, the right to investigate, then the police should investigate and say that they will comply with the warrant requested by the police and requested by the prosecution. It is all framed, false, and instigation to the people. The prosecution announced that it would prevent lawmakers from voting on the right to lift martial law. The contents of the statements made by the commander, the police chief, and the Seoul Metropolitan Government chiefs were confirmed by the statement. It's not true at all.

Then where should I cover this? Do we have to cover up among the people on the asphalt? It is said that the civil war is what separates the people on the asphalt. You can't do that. In the end, you have to clarify how you will go about the process and procedure of this law, and you have to take an attitude toward it, but how disgraceful an arrest warrant is to give it to someone who refuses to investigate itself. This is because those who refuse to accept the proceedings of legal proceedings and confirmation of substantive truth at all are forced to take them and proceed with legal proceedings forcibly. In that respect, I think we need to fundamentally reveal our position on how to solve this problem and how to identify and resolve the actual truth about it in our legal order, regardless of what the lawyers and these people are saying.

[Anchor]
As the arrest warrant you mentioned was not executed yesterday, attention is being paid to when the arrest warrant will be re-executed. Director of Airborne Oh Dong-woon has already sent a warning that if he fails to cooperate before the security service, he can be charged with obstructing the execution of special public affairs. If it was canceled once yesterday, and the security service's non-cooperation continues like this, the possibility of acknowledging the charge of obstructing the execution of special public affairs, what do you think?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
I think it's very high. Basically, the warrant is... what I want to tell you is the veil of ignorance. It's called the veil of ignorance. It can be seen as justice to go behind the veil without knowing who this person is and who I am for a moment, and to judge by leaving the advantages and disadvantages when someone anonymous does this. According to the veil of innocence, if someone physically resisted the warrant in the process of executing it under a court-issued warrant, it would naturally interfere with the execution of public affairs. If you carried a weapon and were multiple, it would interfere with the execution of special public affairs. Here, the judiciary is supposed to judge whether it is illegal, so-called legally right or wrong, not individual public officials. Basically, even if you can object to the judiciary's decision, it is right to follow the system accordingly.

Therefore, what was very shocking this time is not the act of any cause of death, such as the issuance of an arrest warrant and the execution accordingly. The fact that the state's actions were blocked by the decision of some of the state officials. So this means that the order of the democratic republic is not moving as an order, but it is clashing within this so-called internal strife that makes it impossible to enforce itself. In this case, it can be seen as a state collapse situation. If each ministry and each institution can judge arbitrarily. Our Constitution clearly defines it. The judiciary makes decisions regarding the restraint of human beings. There are people who may not like it, who may not like it, or who may not like it, but you should follow that. Anyone, whether an incumbent president or a former president, respects the order and fights within the order and system, but the fact that state agencies have resisted this by mobilizing physical force this time is a very serious situation, so I think the speed of the investigation and the disposition of various job openings will be made quickly.

[Anchor]
Now, the police special investigation team has notified the head of the security and the deputy head of the security department of the security department at 2 p.m. today. There is no sign of responding to the summons yet, but what are the charges that can be summoned and applied and what do you think about the possibilities?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
The two main charges are abuse of authority and obstruction of the execution of special public affairs. In a word, it can be seen as a part of interfering with the judicial act itself of the execution of an arrest warrant by asking for authority. There is also a search in the process of executing the arrest warrant, but again, there is nothing that can be rejected for military or official reasons. If there is, I would like someone to present it. But as far as I know, there isn't one. The first thing in executing an arrest warrant is to present an arrest warrant to the person to be arrested and then arrest him. There is no legal basis to prevent this. Of course, there is a search warrant to find the person, but the search warrant includes seizure and search, that is, the disposal of objects. And I think that it could be a very serious offense to say that this enforcement process itself is not even a personal opinion, but to use internal forces to prevent it.

[Anchor]
From the point of view of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, we will ask Acting President Choi Sang-mok for cooperation as the security of the security service continues. So you're qualified to direct the security service to acting chief Choi Sang-mok, right?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
That's right. The acting president can be said to have been delegated the authority to exercise all the positions and powers of the president. For now, it can be seen that you can act as an agent. In that sense, the security service is not under the direction of a suspended president, but rather as an acting president, who is now serving as an acting president. That's why in this state, in fact, these things should not be repeated in the future. Then the order of the constitution, the order of the constitution that allows investigation and prosecution of the incumbent president on charges of civil war and foreign exchange, the court's judgment, the issuance of arrest warrants, and the enforcement of the law, so the acting chief executive is responsible for preventing the security from continuing to resist and even physical conflicts between state agencies.

[Anchor]
Is there any other way another Airborne could take other than re-enforce this arrest warrant?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
For now, it seems a little more likely to be re-enforced. Anyway, it's a warrant issued and there's a deadline left. So I'm thinking about two things. One is the method of arresting or compulsory investigation of major executives, such as the chief of security and the deputy chief, on charges of obstructing the execution of special public affairs, and the execution of arrest warrants after that, although the possibility of this is not very high, it can be said that you are considering one. The second is a pre-arrest warrant request. In other words, requesting an arrest warrant immediately. A preliminary arrest warrant is a request for the issuance of an arrest warrant without arresting a person. If so, unless you give up the warrant review, the warrant review will be held. Then, basically, there is a possibility of participating in a warrant review or making various arguments and arguments in the process against a pre-arrest warrant request, so it is necessary to secure recruits and conduct investigations in that way.

[Anchor]
However, President Yoon said that he would soon appoint a lawyer to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. Lawyers joined the warrant execution site yesterday. What is the possibility that President Yoon will coordinate the investigation schedule with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit through the lawyers?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
We can't rule out the possibility of that. But basically, it's the same with the recent letter. Overall, I think you're in this position of how dare you investigate me. So I think the possibility of responding to the investigation will be very low in the future. However, since the arrest warrant is basically about those who refuse and refuse the investigation itself, I think it can be said that it can be coordinated to show that there is no need to execute the arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
Apart from the investigation, let's take a look at how the impeachment trial is going now. The second preparatory date was held at the Constitutional Court yesterday. The issues of the impeachment trial and the arrangement of evidence have just been completed, should I look at it like this?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
That's right. Basically, if the preparatory procedure is a part of how and in what order the trial will be conducted in the future, the date of pleading is an attack and defense to make a specific judgment on it. In other words, it can be said that the preparation, and then the specific trial is held from the date of pleading. If we talk about what to submit and do in both attack and defense, who to call witnesses, and these things on the preparatory date, the preparation process is now over without further deciding what part, who, and how to do it.

[Anchor]
The National Assembly said it would withdraw the violation of the rebellion in the grounds for impeachment. How can I understand this background?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
Basically, the suspension of duties following the impeachment of the president is a very big constitutional crisis. In this area, the parts that resolve uncertainty can be very important. In that regard, in the case of rebellion, there are many people who have already been arrested as important mission workers, and in this situation, it may take some time to determine whether they have committed criminal rebellion. Even if there are a lot of clear parts. In that regard, the aim is to speed up the impeachment trial, and there are two main things.

The first is that the members of the State Council agree that martial law has been declared without a legitimate cabinet meeting and without a department, so the constitutional emergency martial law is a declaration that you may remember, but if there is a special reason for the president, the act of limiting basic rights is carried out through procedural strictness, and there is confidence in the fact that the declaration without even a proper cabinet meeting can be regarded as serious unconstitutionality.

The second part is that it was intended to prevent the resolution of martial law, that is, the establishment of the crime of rebellion will take place in criminal trials anyway, but we believe that impeachment is sufficient with those parts. Finally, in conclusion, it seems that the investigation process itself may be delayed a lot as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit's recruitment is frustrated.

[Anchor]
President Yoon's side is now putting the crime of rebellion itself in and out of the National Assembly over withdrawing the crime of rebellion. If so, will the substance of the grounds for impeachment disappear? Then, it should be judged by the National Assembly again, what do you think about this?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
Basically, it is necessary to check this through the overall framework of civil and criminal trials. Basically, it adds a reason. For example, there are reasons other than rebellion, but if you suddenly add it to the trial after the prosecution resolution, you need to make a resolution again. However, if certain parts of the existing reasons for prosecution are excluded, in conclusion, the Constitutional Court judges whether or not the National Assembly has made them as reasons for prosecution, but excluding the reasons for prosecution is not disadvantageous from the respondent's point of view. If a disadvantageous thing is added from the respondent's point of view, the decision should be made again, but if the content is to reduce the disadvantageous issue from the respondent's point of view, it is difficult to say that a resolution is necessary again.

[Anchor]
The preparation date for the Constitutional Court's hearing has been completed and the date for the formal hearing has been set. It is set for 2 p.m. on the 14th, and arguments will be held every Tuesday and Thursday, so should I understand that this is the Constitutional Court's expression of its will to make a prompt trial?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
That's right. In fact, it can be said that yesterday's scene made me think that the Constitutional Court had to make a decision quickly. Even if not, the original presidential impeachment trial is suspended because the president, the head of the administration and the head of state, violated the constitution and the law. It's not a normal state of state. Constitutional trials are basically called constitutional protection trials. Since it is to restore the constitutional order, the process of restoration in this area must be carried out quickly. In that respect, I think it will be difficult for the Constitutional Court to accept the parts that prolong this as much as possible in the chaos.

Second, if you look at the scene yesterday, I think it may be difficult to reveal the actual truth of a very important issue at a national level unless you quickly decide whether to dismiss the president or not, because you still do not respond to the rebellion investigation at all and say that the entire impeachment trial is illegal.

[Anchor]
I see. Lastly, I'll ask you a short question. According to the Constitutional Court Act, the parties must attend the formal hearing in person, but the calculation method will be complicated. How do you think you're going to judge?

[Kim Sung Hoon]
Basically, according to the Constitutional Court Act, if the party is not present on the date of pleading, the date can simply proceed. I think there is a high possibility that he will not attend anyway. The arrest warrant is still alive this time. In addition, it may be a pre-arrest warrant, but it seems that there is a higher possibility that he will not leave his official residence anyway. However, we need to check this part and talk about it. The respondent said that this should be done as slowly as 6 months, but I am.

Whether they support it or not, I think the Constitutional Court will do it, from the people's point of view, whether it's right to continue to take this long and prolonged divide at a national level. Because in the end, judging what happened at the time, what instructions were made, and whether it was a violation of the Constitution, is the most important and urgent issue at our national level. However, it seems that the parts for checking and organizing this part will proceed quickly regardless of attendance or not. Unless this confusion is resolved, more severe conflicts will continue. Externally, I think there is nothing left for Korea to lose credibility even more. So in the end, what the actual truth is and what parts of it should be responsible for needs to be done quickly unless you keep calling the people up the asphalt.

[Anchor]
I see. We have talked with lawyer Kim Sung-hoon so far about the legal issues of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which failed to secure President Yoon's recruits. Thank you for talking today. Thank you very much.