Court rejects President Yoon's objection to "executing arrest warrant"...Whether to re-execute or not

■ Host: Jeong Jin-hyung Anchor
■ 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 [YTN Newswide] when quoting.

[Anchor]
The court rejected an objection filed by Yoon Suk Yeol's president, saying the execution of an arrest warrant was illegal. With the deadline for the arrest warrant for President Yoon just a day away, tensions are currently rising near his official residence in Hannam-dong. President Yoon Suk Yeol's side said that President Yoon will attend and make a statement at the Constitutional Court's impeachment hearing date in the future, drawing attention to whether it can be a variable in the impeachment trial. Let's take a look at the relevant information with lawyer Kim Soo.

How are you, lawyer? Let's first look at the breaking news that came in in the 2nd generation. The breaking news broke that President Yoon Suk Yeol filed an objection to the execution of an arrest warrant against the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and the Seoul Western District Court decided to dismiss it today. Please organize what this is about.

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, isn't the arrest warrant a lot of issues right now? An arrest warrant was issued by the Seoul Western District Court on Dec. 31. And then on January 2nd, the president of Yoon Suk Yeol said that he would appeal this part because it was against the law of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act in relation to the issuance of the warrant.

[Anchor]
You said there was a part that was harmful under the constitution, but what part is that?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Article 12 of the Constitution states that there is a provision for freedom of the body and that no arrest or detention is made unless it is by law. In the case of arrest of a warrant, there is a part such as arrest and detention, so if it is not subject to the relevant due process, it could violate the Constitution, so I filed an objection for these reasons. However, the issue at the time was whether the warrant could be challenged.

In particular, the issue was how to dispute this part in the absence of an unexecuted warrant. First of all, President Yoon Suk Yeol was known to file an objection to this part based on Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act, so there was one part that could be controversial about how the court would judge and whether Article 417 could be applied, and if the issue could be judged under Article 417, it could be dismissed or cited, so that part drew attention.
But because it was dismissed as of today, the reason is not yet known, so we are also receiving attention for the specific reason.

[Anchor]
Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act were also controversial.

[Kim Sung-soo]
Since it is stated that the warrant excludes Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds for claiming that this part violates the Constitution, the court can refuse to confiscate or search in the case of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Depending on the interpretation, there may be parts that seem to be judged above the law. As a result, this became an issue, and even for these reasons, there was a part that was the reason for the objection, so we should wait and see if there was a judgment on this part in today's decision to dismiss it.

[Anchor]
That's something to wait and see, but if the court officially dismissed it like this, and the reason for this was related to Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, can this controversy be calmed down?

[Kim Sung-soo]
For Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the court specifically determined that there is no problem with writing the relevant provisions regarding the issuance of this warrant, the court's primary judgment has been made, so there may be a part where the controversy can be ended.

However, it may be argued that this is the court's primary judgment, and that there is something that can be considered to be more in-depth judgment, so it may be additionally argued that we cannot understand this anyway. [Anchor] President Yoon's arrest warrant issued by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit from the court, this deadline is now until tomorrow. So, after the first warrant execution has failed, security around the presidential residence is getting stricter, so the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will execute the warrant again, right?

[Kim Sung-soo]
The prevailing observation was that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit would execute the warrant once more. And from the point of view, the 6th is the last day, and it is highly likely that the defense will be very heavy, so there was an observation that it would be done today, and since we hosted it last time in the morning, there was a talk that this time too would start in the morning, but there was no movement this morning.

So, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does that, will you try to execute it tomorrow, or will you re-request an arrest warrant and try again based on a new deadline? If not, there are various possibilities such as whether to proceed with an arrest warrant or other procedures, so first of all, attention is being paid to how the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is struggling with this.

[Anchor]
In the first execution, there were some physical fights, but if we execute it again this time, can we expect the confrontation to become more intense?

[Kim Sung-soo]
There are rumors that there was a physical fight in the first round, and there are now rumors that the part of the injury is also included in the crime during the current complaint or accusation process, and this injury is a injury when there is a person who is injured in the process of obstructing the execution of public affairs.

As a result, there were some speculations that there were physical fights and that there were actual injuries, so even at the time, there was a story that when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit withdrew, it seemed that some big problems could arise due to physical events. As a result, some say that if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit executes it again this time, there is a high possibility that a safer accident will occur because it is highly likely that the defense related to this area has become more serious.

[Anchor]
What happens to the next scenario if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit fails to execute the warrant within the deadline by tomorrow? You mentioned it earlier, but it's going to be re-executed. There's a breaking news. I'll tell you first and then continue my appearance. I think President Yoon

has come up with a position. I'm sorry that I didn't notify you of the rejection of the objection, it is said to have expressed this position. The purpose of the objection is to be denied arrest and search. The dismissal of the objection does not mean that the arrest warrant is legal. Earlier, lawyer Kim Sung-soo organized the contents of the objection, and I think his position on this came out now. I'm sorry that I didn't notify you of the rejection of the objection if I deliver the contents once again. How can I view this?

[Kim Sung-soo]
If the objection is rejected, shouldn't the claim and the applicant be notified that this part has been rejected? However, I think this notice itself was found out a little faster through media reports.

As a result, it seems to be saying that there is regret that the dismissal notice has not been made. Also, the purpose of the current objection itself is to insist on disallowing arrest and search, right? \ And as I mentioned earlier, I said that this could be the primary judgment, but even if there is a dismissal of this part, I think I will consider that additional part because I can review various appeals and other objection procedures.

[Anchor]
The rejection of the objection does not mean that the arrest warrant itself is legal. So I think it means not acknowledging it, but I think what you said earlier. Then what can we do after this?

[Kim Sung-soo]
For now, it's been dismissed, so you'll get the reason for the dismissal. And based on what's written there, you'll think about whether you'll be judged by the court again on re-appeals or things like this, and didn't you tell me that it's now dismissed?

However, we do not know what the reason for this dismissal is, so we do not know whether the arrest warrant was dismissed because it was legal, or whether the dismissal was made for this reason, such as the contents of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Anchor]
After grasping the reasons for the dismissal, he said he would consider whether to appeal again to the Supreme Court next. We will report the related news again as soon as we organize it in the following news. And yesterday afternoon, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit sent an official letter again demanding cooperation from the acting presidential bodyguard Choi Sang-mok. But there's no reply. What kind of concerns does Acting President Choi have right now, and what do you think?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Isn't the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit currently preventing the execution of arrest warrants for security reasons? That's why I asked Acting Authority Choi Sang-mok to direct the security service to stop this execution blocking part.

That's why the issue is whether there is a legal basis in this part, and if you look at Article 11 of the Government Organization Act, the president has the authority to supervise the heads of central administrative agencies, and if you look at Article 3 of the Presidential Security Act, the chief of security has the authority to direct and supervise the security officials.

That's why it's an issue in this regard because the head of the security agency can be seen as a command and supervision of the security agency's business execution through command and supervision, and because he's currently acting as an acting president, he can be seen as the president's authority to carry out this event. In the case of acting chief Choi Sang-mok, the fact that he has not yet responded to this request by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the security agency are suing each other on the premise that their current work is a legitimate execution of public affairs. Therefore, from the standpoint of acting Choi Sang-mok, I think we have no choice but to seriously think about which argument can be judged to be more legitimate.

[Anchor]
Then, can the acting authority itself instruct the security agency to cooperate? Can an acting authority give an order to cooperate with the security service?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As I said, first of all, acting as an acting president. In the case of the president, it is possible because the head of the central administrative agency has the authority to direct and supervise, and in the case of an acting president, there are various theories on how far the acting president can exercise his authority, but the most likely theory is that it is possible to maintain the status quo.

If so, it can be an issue of whether the command and supervision of the security service goes beyond the status quo, and it is highly likely to be considered to be within the scope of the status quo. Therefore, even if you are an acting authority, I think you have the right to command and supervise the security service's work in the end, but when you direct and supervise this part, you can see whether the security service will accept that part as a separate part, so we need to look at that part separately.

[Anchor]
However, at the time of the first warrant execution, acting Choi Sang-mok ordered the police to put the security forces in the official residence, wasn't it known like this? So, it seems to be an order to the police, not an order to cooperate with the security service, but how should we view this part?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Isn't it possible that acting Choi Sang-mok needs more manpower to be put into the security service in relation to the security service to prevent the execution of the security service? In this regard, in the case of the police, the security service can ask the military and police for related cooperation.

That's why there was a request for cooperation, and I asked the acting president to proceed with the police once again with this request for cooperation. This is what I asked for from Acting Chief Choi Sang-mok. Since it is now known that acting Choi Sang-mok has asked the police to cooperate on this, isn't there a variety of disputes about which part this is now?

Therefore, the opposition party is now claiming that this act of acting Choi Sang-mok is illegal, so if it is premised that it is illegal, there is a story that could be the reason for the impeachment. [Anchor] Could it be, the reason for impeachment? [Kim Sung-soo] If you look at Article 65 of the Constitution, there is a provision for impeachment.

And in the provisions of impeachment, if the law is violated, it can be grounds for impeachment, and then isn't there a part where the resolution itself can be resolved with the consent of the majority? Therefore, if the National Assembly considers it a violation of the law, the impeachment can be reviewed for now, but there are still many uncertainties about whether this can be a violation of the law, so I think the National Assembly will consider that as well.

[Anchor]
President Yoon also said that he would file a complaint against the officials in charge of the Airborne Division, the National Police Agency, and the Ministry of National Defense for their involvement in the execution of arrest warrants, but in the end, the police and the military conspired to execute illegal warrants by the Airborne Division, and protested against the request of the Security Agency. Is this how you look at it?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, let me explain the arguments of both sides. First of all, for those who claim that this part of the arrest warrant is illegal to the security office, the security office's restraint itself hindered the work of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, right? That's why they claim that it's an obstruction of the execution of public affairs, and in this regard, the police have asked the chief of security and the deputy chief of security to attend now. To conduct a interrogation of the suspect to see if there is actually a violation of the law. There's one part like that. On the contrary, on the part of President Yoon Suk Yeol, the security service's work is legal and obstructing the security service's work to execute arrest warrants is rather an obstruction of public affairs.

President Yoon Suk Yeol said today that he would file a complaint against the head of the Airborne Division, deputy chief prosecutor, senior prosecutor, and investigator for obstruction of justice, intrusion of special buildings, and violation of the Military Base and Military Facility Protection Act. As I said at the time, the security office has a part where related units and police work inside the security office. However, there are talks about not following the work order in that regard.

If you do not follow the instructions, you will file a complaint in this case because it could lead to protests, dereliction of duty, or obstruction of the exercise of rights to abuse your authority.

[Anchor]
And as we told you in the report earlier, the police emergency security special investigation team booked two additional security officials, following the presidential security chief and the deputy security chief, so four security guards were investigated. However, the officials in charge of the security office, who were asked to attend by the police earlier, expressed their position, cannot leave. That's why I said I'd refuse to attend. Is it possible to refuse attendance for this reason?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the issue will be whether a warrant can be issued in relation to arrest. If you don't attend this part without a legitimate son-in-law or if you are concerned about not attending, you can consider issuing an arrest warrant. In the end, if I say that there is an urgent situation regarding the execution of the warrant by the 6th, the issue will be whether the court can consider this part as a legitimate reason.

Because of that situation, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police are asking you to attend on the 7th because the warrant deadline is the 6th. If so, depending on whether you will attend on the 7th and for what reason you will not attend, in the end, there may be a lot of changes in the future.

[Anchor]
However, obstruction of public affairs and obstruction of special public affairs are different. How is this different?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of obstruction of the execution of public affairs, it is punished if the government interferes with this part through assault or intimidation. It's stated in Article 136 of the Criminal Code. In the case of obstruction of special public affairs, if such obstruction of public affairs is carried out through groups or multiple powers or dangerous objects, the obstruction of special public affairs is established, and the punishment for obstruction of public affairs is aggravated by up to half.

And even if a special official obstruction act causes a injury, that is, an injury, it is possible to punish a very serious sentence of more than three years in prison. Therefore, due to the current obstruction of special public affairs,
Since both sides are arguing, it can be a number of issues in this regard as well.

[Anchor]
So, if a group or multiple power is shown, it interferes with the execution of special public affairs in this case, and in that case, the punishment is worse than the obstruction of the execution of public affairs. That's how they organized it. In this situation, it is known that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is considering various countermeasures, but it could be transferred to an arrest warrant request rather than a re-execution of an arrest warrant. When does this happen?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Even if the arrest warrant is requested again and the deadline for the arrest warrant is renewed, in the end, if it is the same as the current situation, it will not be possible to execute it, and if that happens, only the investigation period will be delayed. In that case, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has no choice but to review what there are on other cards, and it can be seen that the most important thing is the request for an arrest warrant.

Then, in the case of an arrest warrant request, unlike an arrest warrant. An arrest warrant is to look at this part of whether there are considerable doubts to commit a crime formally, and whether there is a fear of refusing or refusing to comply with attendance without justifiable reasons. In the case of an arrest warrant, there should be a more serious suspicion of this reason, and the other thing is that there should be a fear of escape or destruction of evidence.

As a result, this requirement itself can be seen as different, and there are areas where we need to persuade the court more about significant reasons to suspect that we have committed a crime. However, another difference is that in the case of an arrest warrant, unlike an arrest warrant, there is a procedure in which a party can attend the court and express their opinions on this part.

Therefore, if an arrest warrant is requested, a warrant review date will be held, and through this date, it can be seen that President Yoon Suk Yeol has not yet submitted any specific legal documents related to this case.

If this answer, the Constitutional Court's answer, and this was a comprehensive part of the issue, I think we can try to secure more facts through it because we may have to answer a little more detailed parts of the facts in order to defend the part of the arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
Perhaps that's why President Yoon Suk Yeol's lawyers also intend to respond to the suspect's interrogation, if an arrest warrant is issued. He also expressed that position, but if an arrest warrant is requested, isn't there a problem that the court has to issue? But just because everyone wants it doesn't mean the court has to issue it. But when we put together the circumstances, can we see this situation with weight on which side of issuance or dismissal?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As for whether or not to issue it, it is necessary to persuade the court as much as possible that the investigative agency can explain the reason to suspect that it has committed a crime, and this part is expected to be the first issue, and that there is a risk of escape or destruction of evidence. That's why the issue will be how you can prove or clarify that part.

And if you eventually attend and express your opinion in the court at the time, you will provide various evidences to prove that there is no fact that the investigative agency is currently claiming, because Yoon Suk Yeol's president is denying that there is none of the facts. Then, I think the court will eventually decide whether to issue it or not based on which one is more persuasive.

[Anchor]
And there is a fierce battle between the prosecutors and President Yoon over the impeachment trial of the president, and President Yoon expressed his opinion that the president will attend the appropriate hearing today. What do you think is the background of this in-person attendance?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Until now, this has been the date of preparation for pleading, and from the next day and the 14th, it is the date of pleading. In the case of a pleading date, it is a principle that the parties attend. And if you don't attend, you can proceed with the absence from the next date, but there were many opinions that you can attend now, but now you are saying you will attend on an appropriate date, so the Constitutional Court has designated five impeachment hearings until the 14th, 16th, 21st, 23rd, and 4th of next month.

As a result, some say that President Yoon Suk Yeol will attend the Constitutional Court and express his active opinion on the case after the case has progressed to some extent rather than the first date, and President Yoon Suk Yeol's attendance in person and expressing his opinion is a way to dispel suspicions in various ways because President Yoon Suk Yeol is currently suspected of delaying the investigation or being very unfaithful in the impeachment trial.

[Anchor]
The fact that the Constitutional Court has designated the deadline five times in advance can be seen as considering the possibility of President Yoon's absence to some extent. Then, how much of these five episodes will come out, can we expect?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Personally, I think it is more likely to come out after the third anniversary than the first. The reason for this is that we have not yet been able to give a detailed answer on the facts or these matters in the current hearing preparation period, and it is highly likely that we will not be able to give a very specific answer on the first date. In a situation where we cannot give a specific answer, I think it would be more advantageous for President Yoon Suk Yeol to attend after the third date rather than the second date.

[Anchor]
And one more controversial thing now is the exclusion of the National Assembly's impeachment investigation from the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Should I say that I will not argue about whether I violate the criminal law, but only see if I violate the constitution? What does it mean?

[Kim Sung-soo]
What can be an issue is the impeachment resolution. This resolution summarizes that each act is a violation of any law or constitution, and that the violation itself is a serious act that eventually leads to dismissal.

However, the National Assembly and the petitioner now place the violation of the law under the criminal law as an issue in the case of rebellion, and in order to prove the rebellion, a lot of facts must be proved, and in the end, the date of the impeachment trial is inevitably increased.

I have to do a lot of witness interviews. As a result, the Constitutional Court virtually withdrew the crime of rebellion, so this part of the Constitutional Court virtually withdrew the crime of rebellion related to this part and
How you can see it in relation to it can be an issue.

[Anchor]
As a result, there are interpretations that it is actually a paving stone for a speed war, but if so, the people's power argues that if the impeachment bill has changed, it should be brought back to the National Assembly and voted on. What do you think about this?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the end, if the prosecution resolution is procedurally problematic, there is also a part that can be dismissed. This is why it becomes an issue. At the time of former President Park Geun Hye's impeachment trial, there was a review of similar judgments, and at that time, it was judged that the addition or change of such parts that were out of the same nature would be excluded from the subject of the judgment. If this is not the case, the procedure could be reviewed again. If not, the claimant can consider changing this part in the current state. In the end, the issue will be whether to review this part again procedurally.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, hasn't the indictment of former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who is known to have practically led the December 3 emergency martial law incident, been made public? You've probably seen it, but if you look at this indictment, you're actually targeting President Yoon Suk Yeol. What can you say if you evaluate it?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Since it is said that the indictment of former Minister Kim Yong-hyun has more names of President Yoon Suk Yeol, some say that it is aimed at President Yoon Suk Yeol. However, structurally, President Yoon Suk Yeol's actions are inevitably the main issue, and a civil war must be established, followed by the main worker of the civil war.

Therefore, it seems that the prosecution is stipulated because it has no choice but to organize the indictment saying that President Yoon Suk Yeol's actions constitute a civil war, and the current facts were investigated first, and the prosecution was filed based on this investigation, but in the case of former Minister Kim Yong-hyun, he exercised his right to remain silent after a certain point. Therefore, it would be good to know that we can look at this differently because it is based on the facts we have grasped once in the state of refusal to state statements, so whether President Yoon Suk Yeol's subsequent prosecution can be based on the same facts or additional facts.

[Anchor]
I'll stop listening to it. So far, I've looked at it with lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Thank you for talking today.