[News UP] It's the police's job to execute arrest warrants...an extension of the warrant's deadline

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Jae-hee, Anchor Cho Jin-hyuk
■ Starring: Lawyer Son Jeong-hye

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

[Anchor]
I handed over the execution of the warrant of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to the police, which had been struggling with whether to re-execute the arrest warrant. Today's enforcement seems to have effectively failed. Let's talk in detail with lawyer Son Jung-hye. The part where the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit entrusted the execution of the warrant to the police is controversial, is this possible?

[Son Jung-hye]
Since the Corruption Investigations Unit Act is legally applied to the Criminal Procedure Act, it is possible to draw an interpretation that it can be done by exercising some command over this task to judicial police officers or by requesting investigation support. Regardless of what the law allows, the expression of delegating the task separately does not seem to be a common expression because the subject of the investigation executes the warrant and is responsible for the investigation as the head of the warrant.

For example, the Corruption Investigations Unit Act and the Criminal Procedure Act also have these grounds that other investigative agencies, especially the prosecution, can direct judicial police officials or request investigation support if they are the subject of the execution of arrest warrants. Then, it seems that it is not appropriate to request support or exercise command, and to delegate part of the work.

As such, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit becomes the subject of execution, but if there is a lack of necessary manpower, it is reasonable to request support from the police, and the first execution was also attempted. However, one question is on what basis the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will be removed from the execution of the warrant and entrusted to the police. If the judgment of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit becomes a problem because of the main body of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or acts as an obstacle that President Yoon cannot cooperate with, then the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit should be completely removed and the police should take the lead and control of the investigation. Then it's a very natural trend for the police to investigate and the police to execute the warrant.

So I think we need to make an accurate judgment. We still take the lead in the investigation, and the police execute the warrant, which is very important for securing recruits. There are aspects that are difficult to understand from the public's point of view, so I think the steps are twisted. If this situation has come to this point, it would be much simpler and cleaner to transfer the case to the police, apply for an arrest warrant, the prosecution requests it, and the court issues it again.

[Anchor]
Then, until midnight today is the deadline for the execution of the warrant issued by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. Is there a possibility that the police will get this warrant and go into execution during this time?

[Son Jung-hye]
If you get a new warrant, you can move regardless of the expiration date, so there is no problem. However, there is a need for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to try to re-enforce it within the expiration date by today and nevertheless show its best efforts, but when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is expected to try to re-enforce it today with a will, it voluntarily gives up and hands it over to another agency? The people have no choice but to criticize whether they are willing to investigate.

So, even if the first execution failed, we should try again and come up with various measures to show the public that we tried to increase the effectiveness and execution rate of the arrest warrant, but I think it would be difficult to execute today because I think that delegating the responsibility and authority to other agencies is losing some power of the investigation.

[Anchor]
In the meantime, there have been doubts about the investigation capabilities and will of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but I think it has been confirmed again.

[Son Jung-hye]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit itself has greatly reduced the value of the institution's existence to them. Not only that, but also the authority of the investigative agency has been greatly tarnished. Furthermore, by not properly coping with obstruction of justice but rather leaving it to the police, does the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit have a sense of duty for its role and job authority as an investigative execution agency of the public authority? I can't help but point out this part. As such, even if today's execution is practically difficult and an armed conflict is expected and the president's cooperation is not drawn, it should have been attempted by all means possible from the standpoint of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit.

If you don't do that and delegate it to the police with one last chance, wouldn't it be difficult to prepare right now? If it is not the contents of the official document that came out in the situation that we will support and prepare like this in cooperation with the police, the police are also absurd. Then, in the end, the trust between the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the police, and the military police, which are gathered in the name of a joint investigation by the National Register, is also being broken. I can point that out. In fact, the country is in a state of confusion, but after the investigation agencies are competing for leadership, there is a sound of departure, and then some of the investigation parts are handed over to other agencies. I think it's the appearance of apologizing to the people.

[Anchor]
The Airborne Division announced the plan yesterday. And the police found out this morning. Opinions are also divided like this. I wonder how the president's side will turn out. In the meantime, haven't the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit pointed out that this warrant is illegal because it has no right to investigate the crime of rebellion? Then, how will the president react if the police, who have the right to investigate the crime of rebellion, start arresting?

[Son Jung-hye]
The basic principles of the president's side are as follows. I explained to the effect that we are willing to cooperate if the subject of the investigation presents a legally issued warrant. However, even if the police issue a warrant, it is difficult to rule out the possibility of raising another issue and not following it, but among the main arguments, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit cannot be the subject of the investigation, and I think that what the police tell us to do will lead to a situation where we feel more obligated to follow it at a time when the illegality has been removed to some extent. What's unfortunate is that after the weekend, the Seoul Western District Court decided that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit could investigate and that it would be the subject of the execution of the arrest warrant. However, the next day, there was an irony that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit was assigned to the police.

[Anchor]
It is said that barbed wire fences are also installed around the presidential residence. If the police re-execute the arrest warrant, I think there may be concerns that the physical conflict between the police and the bodyguard will become more serious.

[Son Jung-hye]
Since the police are more aggressive than the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to deal with the act of interfering with the execution of arrest warrants on the spot, they are likely to lower the possibility of armed illegal activities even after the second execution or re-claiming of the extended execution by the security service. After the first round of execution, the security office said, "We need to play a role in the people," but another variable was that the Seoul Western District Court decided that the arrest warrant was free from defects and legal, so there is a possibility that the security office should not interfere with the execution of the warrant issued by the court in such a way as this, so I can tell you that the investigative agency should move in a way that lowers the possibility of armed conflict a little more.
In particular, the summons has already been notified twice due to obstruction of the execution of special public affairs and abuse of authority.

Is the head of the security service committed such an act with the determination to face criminal punishment? And not only you, but also other security agents who received your orders could also be subject to investigation. Is he the one responsible for all that? We hope that the public will not experience an armed situation because we are witnessing the heavy punishment that must be suffered by illegal orders against others.

[Anchor]
If so, if the security service tries to execute an arrest warrant next time, can the police really arrest the deputy chief of security and the chief of security?

[Son Jung-hye]
It falls under the current arrest requirements and also the emergency arrest requirements. And there is a possibility that it could be a way to get an arrest warrant at the same time. It's because I've already sent two summonses, but I'm not responding. Then, if this is not done after three subpoenas, it is worth considering how to obtain an arrest warrant from the court and execute an arrest warrant for the president and an arrest warrant for the security chief at the same time. And as I said, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit transfers the case, the police become the subject of the investigation and the warrant the police applied to the Seoul Central District Court will dispel the various reasons that the president has insisted on. The subject of the investigation is the same as

Then there's no more justification to reject it. I think that when such a situation occurs, the security service will not easily cause an armed situation. Since there is a possibility that the police will secure manpower and more people will be dispatched, I think there is no such thing as the first execution that the public power will be neutralized in vain.

[Anchor]
A civic group filed a complaint against Acting Director Choi Sang-mok on charges of dereliction of duty for avoiding the security service's command and supervision obligation. How do you see this part?

[Son Jung-hye]
In order for job abandonment to be established, the scope of specific jobs and such things must be specifically confirmed. There is a part where there must be a causal relationship between dereliction of duty and illegal obstruction of justice. However, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the security agency will not move even if acting Choi issues an order because it is not refusing to execute the arrest warrant due to the execution of legitimate official duties, but because the head of the security agency is arbitrarily committing an illegal criminal act. It's talking about obstruction of justice and abuse of authority.

As such, there is a concern about whether the illegality can be prevented just because Acting President Choi instructs and cooperates, but the most powerful authority in Korea is currently with Acting President Choi. He's the head of the administration and he's the commander-in-chief. Appropriate action appears to be needed. It remains still even though it has reached a level where it is difficult to prevent illegal activities by the security service by neglecting or neglecting it later. Then you'll have to take the corresponding responsibility for that.

[Anchor]
And at the time of the first execution, the chief of security ordered the airlift to fire. The opposition party also claimed to have ordered the bodyguards to fire. The bodyguard immediately protested that it was not true, but can the scope or authority of the weapon be at the head of the bodyguard's judgment?

[Son Jung-hye]
There is a basis for the Security Service Act, and it exemplifies situations in which it can be used. These situations can be used as a means to protect security targets for the minimum necessary security purposes, such as criminal acts that can be sentenced to three years or more of imprisonment for harm, or there is no defense against illegal activities or attacks.

It's listed as being able to use it for self-defense, for emergencies, but all of those listed reasons and the current situation is very different. Now the investigative agency didn't go to threaten the president's life and body. Since he went to execute a court-issued warrant, if it is a legitimate execution of public affairs, the use of weapons can be a completely groundless act, which can be a very serious effect that leads to obstruction of special public affairs or death, so would he use such a means from the standpoint of a person with general legal feelings and common sense? I hope it's misleading because I think this is another very serious crime that's hard to imagine.

[Anchor]
The police booked the chief of security and the deputy chief, but they refused once. I asked for another attendance this week. Can the bodyguard also be subject to a compulsory investigation if they continue not to attend?

[Son Jung-hye]
That's right. The security of the state is a civil servant of the Republic of Korea. You have to follow the order of the Republic of Korea. Even if the president they have been protecting has the current status of the president and security is necessary according to the president's will, they are obligated to follow the relevant laws. In particular, Korean officials have explained in great detail that this warrant is legal twice in the court because they need to respect judicial order, but they will not follow this warrant as a one-sided and arbitrary argument. What law and order would allow it to be done?

And this is unprecedented in the world, where it takes 100 or 200 or more people to arrest just one person now, or even to maintain order, hundreds or thousands of people. When executing the arrest warrant for former President Chun Doo-hwan, six investigators went out to execute the warrant. I can't help but wonder what kind of public power can be wasted like this. I would like to say that it is another duty of the head of security to follow the order of the state and take responsibility for the safety of his subordinates rather than his personal beliefs.

[Anchor]
You have explained several times earlier that the court said the warrant was legal, but if you go into more detail, President Yoon Suk Yeol filed an objection with the court, asking the court to disallow the execution of the arrest and search warrant, but it was rejected. The court refuted one by one, can you explain what it is about?

[Son Jung-hye]
First, it is judged that it is reasonable and legal for the subject of the investigation to be the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. The second is a confirmatory clause that is naturally derived from the interpretation of the law in relation to the part that stipulates exceptions to Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In other words, since the search for arresting a person and the search for finding an object are stipulated differently, in this case, this provision can be excluded because it is not a search warrant to confiscate the object, but an arrest warrant search for a person. Of course, it has nothing to do with the validity of the warrant because it is used in a confirmatory sense, so it is not unconstitutional. Since both the Central District Court and the Seoul Western District Court have jurisdiction over jurisdiction, even if they did it in the West, there is no problem with the validity of the warrant and the jurisdiction is legal.

[Anchor]
The decision to remove the crime of rebellion from President Yoon's impeachment letter is also controversial. There were also disagreements in the legal profession, but the issue is whether it is a revision of the reason for impeachment or a simple change of wording, right?

[Son Jung-hye]
It seems that some people are raising controversy over reasons that will not be much controversial in the legal profession. It is also clearly stated in the decision of former President Park Geun Hye. In principle, it is not allowed to add or change the grounds for prosecution in relation to the grounds for impeachment. However, if the basic facts remain the same, it is permissible to change only the provisions applied to the law. This is the basic purpose. Therefore, the basic judgment is that whether the same facts are left as grounds for impeachment and whether the legal provisions are unconstitutional or a crime of civil war is ultimately in the realm of the Constitutional Court's judgment, so it is not a problem at all if the factual same relationship and basic facts that actually hinder the respondent's right to defend themselves are the same.

I can tell you this. When I file a lawsuit, if I file a claim for A, B, C, and D, and if A is likely to win, I can delete C and D and ask them to judge only A and B. You can think of it as that kind of situation. Even if you judge A, B, and C, I did A- and B-, but A- is correct. Then the Constitutional Court can make a judgment on it because it is the same factual relationship within the scope of the judgment. As such, this claim is virtually unlikely to be judged illegal or invalid, and rather, if the reason for the claim is reduced, it is advantageous to the respondent. If the crime of rebellion is removed, it is much more helpful to exercise the right to defend if the crime of rebellion is excluded from the subject of judgment. Even though this is not a problem in itself, talking about it was considered as a way to object to the future decision by raising a problem with the delay of the procedure or even a small part.

It is said that designating five collective defense dates with rules based on the inscription is also an infringement of the right to defend. However, the law says that it can be designated collectively. As such, isn't there a problem with the procedure that the people don't know? If you do it over and over again, it looks like there's a problem. However, if you look at it one by one, there is a sub-basis clause, and there is already a precedent and a precedent that it is legal, but if you continue to insist, those who do not know the law may be misled. I'm concerned about that.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is rapidly changing, saying that it has entrusted the police with the execution of arrest warrants. I talked with lawyer Son Jung-hye in detail. Thank you.