When is the D-1 deadline for President Yoon's arrest warrant and the re-execution of the warrant?

■ Host: Anchor Lee Eun-sol
■ Starring: Attorney Kim Sung-soo

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN24] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Let's take a closer look at the confrontation and controversy surrounding the execution of the president's arrest warrant with lawyer Kim Sung-soo today. Please come in. There is a fierce confrontation over the presidential impeachment trial. First of all, let's look at the news that just came in. The Constitutional Court has designated five days for the impeachment trial against the president. Doesn't it start from the 14th? President Yoon said he would attend the meeting in person and express his opinion. What is the meaning of President Yoon's in-person attendance?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the hearing preparation period has ended at the Constitutional Court, and the hearing period has begun. In addition, the hearing dates have been designated five times by January 14, 16, 21, 23, and the 4th of next month. In this regard, President Yoon Suk Yeol's representative said that President Yoon Suk Yeol would attend as a party and express his opinion at an appropriate time, but in this case, unlike the hearing preparation date, it is a principle that the party should attend, not only the agent's attendance.

Therefore, the issue was whether the person would attend or not, and if the person does not attend, the trial can proceed from the next date without attendance. As a result, it was discussed whether or not to attend this time, but how can we interpret this part? The fact that the person directly attends the Constitutional Court and expresses his or her opinion on this case is that the person is very active in this case, and there are many things about the trial, such as delaying the trial. So I think it's a strategy to dispel delays or other intentions in those areas.

[Anchor]
Aren't you saying that you will proceed with the pleading date twice a week, on the 16th, the 21st, including the 14th? I will be present on the due date. When do you expect it to be the right day?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think the President of Yoon Suk Yeol will have no choice but to think about that. In this case, wasn't the execution of arrest warrants continuing to be an issue? Therefore, this can also be a problem as to how to see attendance on the due date without responding to the investigation related to arrest in this part of the criminal case.

As a result, it seems that various reviews will be conducted. In principle, the person concerned should attend on the first day, but given that it is an appropriate date, it is possible to say that he or she will attend after the middle of the five episodes, the third or so, rather than the first, and there are some parts that the president of Yoon Suk Yeol has not yet reviewed the case record, so if he or she is likely to attend so that he or she can actively express his or her opinion, I think he or she will attend after the deadline has passed.

[Anchor]
In the meantime, the National Assembly's impeachment investigation team excluded the charge of rebellion in the impeachment motion of President Yoon. What do you mean by not arguing over whether to violate the criminal law, but whether to violate the constitution alone?

[Kim Sung-soo]
It was impeached and voted on, wasn't it? In that case, a document stating the reasons for impeachment will be submitted to the Constitutional Court. However, this document states that there is a factual relationship to some part and that the act violates some legal or constitutional part, so it should be dismissed. However, among the contents of this description, it can be said that the most important description was whether or not the crime of rebellion was established.

If the crime of rebellion itself is correct, there was an issue in this part because it would be very important as a reason for impeachment. In this regard, the National Assembly virtually withdrew the part of the criminal dispute over the crime of rebellion in the last hearing preparation period. Since the other side and the respondent argue that if the content of the prosecution resolution is to be changed, then this procedural issue can be an issue, and in the past cases, the prosecution resolution in the case of former President Park Geun Hye. There was a part where this was an issue. Therefore, this time, it can be an issue regarding the change of the prosecution decision or such.

[Anchor]
The hearing date has begun, and some say they will focus on violating the constitution, not the criminal law, and there is a prospect that the pace will actually accelerate. What do you think?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the fact that he said he would actually withdraw the crime of rebellion can be interpreted in various ways, and the most likely interpretation is that the establishment of the crime of rebellion must be proved in order to examine the establishment of the crime of rebellion in the impeachment trial.

Therefore, various opinions can be raised on this because it is intended to examine whether the act itself and the overall facts violate the constitution, excluding whether the crime of rebellion can be established under the judgment that the impeachment trial could take a very long time. And isn't the Constitutional Court currently continuing to designate a date anyway?

That's why the pace will actually be very fast, and if you withdraw the rebellion, even if it's not a rebellion, there's something that needs to be proven about the facts themselves. Then, President Yoon Suk Yeol will ask the Constitutional Court to accept witness requests and other matters as much as possible to prove the facts, and the issue will be how far the Constitutional Court will accept it in that regard.

[Anchor]
In the power of the people now, if the impeachment bill has changed, it needs to be re-decided by the National Assembly again. This is the position that the reason for dismissal occurred because the charges, which are the core of the impeachment, have disappeared. What do you think?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I told you about the case of former President Park Geun Hye earlier, but there was a part that was also written in the document at that time. The identity of the reasons for prosecution can be seen as the most important, and in the case of addition or change without identity, it cannot be subject to judgment.

Since it cannot be subject to judgment, if there is a change in the withdrawal of the current reason, I think there is a part that needs to be reviewed procedurally again. If there is no such part, it is a part that can be judged the same and proceeded, so the arguments of both sides are very sharply contested, so I think the court will express its opinion on this.

[Anchor]
The judgment of the court is drawing attention. It was the day before yesterday. It was the second day of preparation for the second hearing of President Yoon's impeachment trial. President Yoon raised the issue of the composition of judges. It is argued that the appointment of Acting Chief Justice Choi Sang-mok as a constitutional judge is invalid because the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Deok-soo itself is invalid. What do you think of this part?

[Kim Sung-soo]
This is a dispute over the interpretation of Article 65 of the Constitution. Article 65 of the Constitution states that civil servants can be impeached if there is a violation of the law, and in the case of ordinary civil servants, there is a part that is possible if the majority of the registered members approve with more than a third of the motion. This is the part that can be impeached, but in the case of Prime Minister Han Deok-soo, at the time of the impeachment resolution, wasn't he exercising the president's acting power?

Therefore, in applying Article 65 of the Constitution, the ruling party argues that the acting president, Han Deok-soo, should have proposed a majority and proceeded with more than two-thirds of the vote, as it stipulates the approval of a majority in the case of the president, and the president of Yoon Suk Yeol is making the same argument.

Therefore, in this regard, impeachment based on more than a majority, not two-thirds, is invalid, and if so, isn't Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok currently acting as an acting president? Since the acting authority itself is invalid, the act of Choi Sang-mok appointing a justice of the Constitutional Court itself is also invalid. So, there is a part that could be a legal issue, so should we see how the Constitution will judge this part?

[Anchor]
What's the legal community's response to this?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think we have no choice but to argue sharply about this part. Regarding the interpretation of Article 65 of the Constitution, how to interpret this part of the acting authority is very difficult when looking at past documents and such parts. As such, it could be an issue, and there were many different interpretations on whether the acting president could appoint a justice of the Constitutional Court, right?

If the impeachment resolution should be based on two-thirds of the requirements, can the acting president consider that the act of the acting president and the act of another acting president is invalid? This can be a very controversial issue, so in the end, opinions will be divided in the legal profession, and if opinions are divided like this, the court will judge and the facts will be settled. So I think that judgment is the most important.

[Anchor]
Opinions are also being divided in the legal profession. Meanwhile, the judges also pointed out the delay in submitting documents to President Yoon. On the part of President Yoon, there is a vast amount of content to review. As an isolated underdog, it is in a position to fight against the hostile media environment. That's why I'm in this position that it's bound to take a long time. Will there be a disadvantageous impact on the strategy of delaying data submission?

[Kim Sung-soo]
It seems that the preparation date for the defense itself was submitted on the same day as the preparation date for the first defense, and the second defense preparation date still required a more careful approach to the issue or evidence.

At first glance, however, this is the issue of how to view it from a normal point of view, and some say that this is a strategy for delaying the trial, so the Yoon Suk Yeol president has no choice but to worry about this, but if he shows this deliberate delay in proceeding with such a trial, there is a part where the court can proceed with the case very quickly. So, I think you'll show a little more active effort to dispel misunderstandings or suspicions about this part, and the pleading period has actually begun, right? If so, I think there will be more specific and active arguments at the hearing date.

[Anchor]
The arrest warrant for President Yoon is due tomorrow. It's only a day away, but the rally has begun again. Boundaries around the presidential residence have also become stricter. Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, shall we try to re-enforce?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In fact, there was a lot of observation that the possibility of re-execution was high this morning. Because it's due until midnight on the 6th. If so, on the last day, there is a high possibility that the security service and supporters will strengthen their defense, so there were talks about starting this morning as well today and last morning, but there's nothing going on right now, right?

As a result, some may say that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is not attempting to execute the warrant again until the expiration date, so we need to see what the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit thinks about this. If the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit says that there is no change in the current situation, it will eventually fail to execute again, so we should look at this as to whether it has no practical benefit.

[Anchor]
Since it's only a day away, I'm also interested in what will happen if I can't execute it.

[Kim Sung-soo]
If the execution is not possible, the arrest cannot be made with the existing warrant because the expiration date has passed. Then you can review the part that requests the issuance of an arrest warrant once again, and if you don't, you're moving on to the next step.

The next step is to consider an arrest warrant request in the end, and if it is not an arrest warrant request, you can consider prosecuting it and proceeding with the process to file a prosecution and be judged by the court. However, it can be said that it is a very essential part to receive a suspect's interrogation and to organize the suspect's position on the charges through the suspect's interrogation, so even if we consider whether to prosecute or not, it seems that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has no choice but to consider whether it can be done without the suspect's interrogation.

[Anchor]
There are many scenarios, but what do you think is the most likely as a legal professional?

[Kim Sung-soo]
After the arrest warrant was reissued, don't you think he's now asking Acting Chief Choi Sang-mok to direct the security service to cooperate? Therefore, it seems that there is a possibility that the execution of an arrest warrant may be considered once again on the premise that cooperation is provided, or if an arrest warrant is requested, unlike an arrest warrant, an arrest warrant will be issued after formal examination?

However, in the case of an arrest warrant, since it is an arrest of a person, it goes through the interrogation procedure of the suspect in this regard. After going through a substantive examination, it will go through a newspaper, and through the process, there will be a process in which I will reveal that I am in this position on criminal charges. As a result, President Yoon Suk Yeol has not answered various facts in detail through the request for an arrest warrant, so I think he will try to get such a specific answer.

However, even if an arrest warrant is issued, there have been cases in which arrest warrants have not been executed in the case of arrest warrants, given past cases in which the issuance of arrest warrants can lead to actual execution. Therefore, I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has no choice but to think about that.

[Anchor]
Didn't the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit send an official letter to Acting President Choi Sang-mok yesterday afternoon demanding that he direct the security agency to cooperate? a situation in which there is no reply What kind of concerns do you think Choi is having right now?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, even in the case of security agencies, the president seems to have the authority to direct and supervise under the Government Organization Act, and since he is performing his duties as an acting president, some say that Choi Sang-mok has the authority to direct and supervise the security agency.

As a result, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is requesting Acting President Choi to cooperate with the execution of the arrest warrant, but Choi seems to have no choice but to worry about it because there is no reply to this, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is claiming that it is illegal or obstruction of justice to prevent the arrest warrant because it is a legitimate execution of the arrest warrant. Since he claims that he is protecting himself and that obstructing this part is rather an obstruction of the execution of public affairs, I think the acting chief executive has no choice but to think about which law is more correct.

[Anchor]
If acting Choi gives an order to cooperate with the bodyguard, is the bodyguard supposed to follow it?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, as I said under the Government Organization Act, it's in Article 11. The president is allowed to direct and supervise the head of the security and central administrative agency in this part, and when he sees the Presidential Security Act, the chief of security is required to direct and supervise the employees of the security service. Therefore, it is highly likely that the command of the security agency can be conducted through the command of the security director, and because it is a part that the president can do once, the same can be done in the case of an acting authority.

As a result, some say that there is a command and supervision authority, but if the security service does not comply with this, how to view it seems to be a separate matter.

[Anchor]
Earlier, at the time of the first warrant execution, acting Choi ordered the police to deploy the security unit's official residence. It seems to be an order to the police, not to cooperate with the security service, and the opposition party warned that this could be a reason for impeachment. How do you judge this part?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, if acting Choi Sang-mok looks inside the official residence inside the security office, the military and police are working together. And it is known that Choi Sang-mok asked for cooperation in such areas as personnel and troops necessary for security at the time, and asked the police to cooperate in this area.

If so, asking for cooperation on this part is a request for cooperation based on Article 15 of the Presidential Security Act, and the acting president's request for cooperation on this part can be a reason for impeachment if it is illegal.

Therefore, the opposition party seems to argue that it could be a reason for impeachment on the premise that it is illegal in relation to that part, but since there is a sharp legal dispute over this part, we need to see if we can conclude that this is illegal.

[Anchor]
Attention is being paid to what decisions will be made. President Yoon Suk Yeol's side, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the National Police Agency, Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit Director Oh Dong-woon, and Deputy Commissioner of the National Police Agency Lee Ho-young will now file a complaint against more than 150 people, including the president of the National Police Agency, who are involved in the execution of arrest warrants. Are there any major issues to be argued against amid the allegation that they have shaken the security system?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, let me explain the facts a little bit. First of all, what President Yoon Suk Yeol said is that he will file charges against the head of the Airborne Division, deputy chief prosecutor, senior prosecutor, investigator, and these people for obstruction of execution of special duties and injuries, intrusion of special buildings, and violation of the Military Base and Military Facility Protection Act, and that if the police or the military ask for cooperation in security affairs, they should cooperate.

In that regard, if there is a violation of this part, it means that we will first take issue with the abuse of authority, obstruction of exercise of rights, protest, and abandonment of duty, and file a complaint against it. Then, if this accusation is filed, whether the claim is correct will eventually be sent through an investigation, and if the prosecution prosecutes it after the sending, it will be prosecuted and confirmed through the judgment of the court, right? Then, depending on what happens to this confirmation, it will eventually be determined whether this part of the law is illegal or not. [Anchor] How are you watching?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In that regard, I think it will be difficult for me to conclude about this. I explain that both sides' arguments are this because the law is like this and the legal basis is like this, but trying not to assert that this judgment may eventually vary depending on the court, and the most important thing is the facts. Depending on the facts, the legal interpretation is inevitably applied differently, so it is difficult for us to affirm that.

[Anchor]
I see. The people in charge of the security service who blocked access to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit at the time of the first arrest warrant execution were booked on charges of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. There seems to be no possibility of responding to police attendance requests for a while, what do you think?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case I just told you, the president of Yoon Suk Yeol has filed a complaint, and the current security and deputy head of the security service have been accused of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. So, since the police have been accused of this, shouldn't we investigate the suspect?

So I notified him of his attendance, but now the chief and deputy directors have a warrant execution period of up to 6 days and are in a very urgent situation, so I can't leave. That's why there's a story that you can't attend right away. So, the police told me to attend on the 7th and 8th, which are now after this 6th, and I think that this will be an additional issue because we can look at whether there are legitimate reasons for attendance on the 7th and 8th, and if we do not attend without justifiable reasons, we can review such parts as arrest warrants.

[Anchor]
Isn't there a difference in the level of punishment between obstruction of public affairs and obstruction of special public affairs?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. The case of obstruction of justice is stipulated in Article 136 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, Article 136 of the Criminal Act stipulates related punishments, and in the case of obstruction of the execution of special public affairs, the sentence can be increased to half from obstruction of public affairs. And if injuries occur in the process of obstructing the execution of special public affairs, there is a part that can punish very serious crimes such as imprisonment for more than three years, so if a injury or special part becomes an issue, the level of punishment can vary greatly depending on what crimes are established.

[Anchor]
With the possibility of an arrest warrant being requested now, which side do you think will be weighed, whether issued or dismissed?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the end, in the case of arrest warrants, the requirements are different from those of arrest warrants. In the case of an arrest warrant, there must be a reason to suspect that he has committed a crime, and there is a possibility that he or she will refuse to attend without justifiable reasons. However, in the case of an arrest warrant, there should be considerable reasons to suspect that a crime has been committed, and there should be a fear of escape or destruction of evidence.

And since it is common to see that there should be more reason to suspect a crime than an arrest warrant when issuing an arrest warrant, if so, in anticipating whether to issue it or not, the investigative agency will eventually claim to prove the facts, and President Yoon Suk Yeol denies the facts as a whole, so I think the court will judge what kind of proof it is about. Even if there are considerable reasons for suspicion, an arrest warrant will not be issued if there is no fear of destroying evidence or fleeing. So even that part can be seen as a variable, so it will be difficult to affirm it right away.

[Anchor]
Let's stop here. I was with lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Thank you.