[News Now] President Yoon's arrest warrant expires...Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit "Leaves the warrant to the police."

■ Host: Anchor Lee Ha-rin and Anchor Jung Ji-woong
■ Starring: Attorney Seo Jeong-bin

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

[Anchor]
As it is the last day of the execution of President Yoon's arrest warrant, tensions have increased, with rallies in Hannam-dong intensifying throughout the weekend and holidays, but it will be difficult to execute today. When the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said it would entrust the police with the execution of arrest warrants for President Yoon, the police responded. Let's talk with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin about the investigation of President Yoon. Welcome.

The investigative agencies are complicated. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the police, and the Ministry of National Defense set up a national investigation headquarters and investigated together, and it was the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit that issued a warrant for President Yoon's arrest. However, it failed to execute once and today, it was revealed. What does it mean when the police handed over the arrest warrant like this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit felt a considerable burden on the execution of the warrant and entrusted the execution. First of all, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said that the reason for entrusting the police to the execution of the warrant was in consideration of the police's expertise in executing the warrant and the uniformity of the command system. The problem now is that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has been executing it so far, and at the end of the day, there is controversy over whether it can be assigned separately from the right to investigate.

[Anchor]
According to an opposition lawmaker, the police also said there was a legal flaw in the official letter of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. Which part are you pointing out?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, details do not seem to have come out, but in the end, the key content seems to have been based on the fact that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the authority to lead the investigation against the police. The Criminal Procedure Act provides that prosecutors can command the police in relation to warrant command and warrant as a basis for the execution of such warrants, and the Criminal Procedure Act also claims that criminal procedure laws apply mutatis mutandis. In fact, although the Criminal Procedure Act is applied mutatis mutandis to the contents necessary under the Public Offices Act, not all regulations can be applied. It is necessary to distinguish between its nature and what is applicable and what is not possible. Isn't it a little lacking to base it on general content? In addition, since the Public Offices Act basically stipulates that the relationship between the Public Offices and investigative agencies such as the police is sought for cooperation, the basis for the Criminal Procedure Act is a little poor. So there is no basis in the police. In the end, it seems to be taking issue with the fact that there is no legal basis to lead the investigation.

[Anchor]
Legally, there will be a little difference between asking for cooperation and conducting command. And if you look more closely at what the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said, "We will extend the arrest warrant period for President Yoon in the future, so the police should execute it."

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. In fact, the part that is a little hard to understand is that in the end, they will continue to exercise the right to investigate and leave only the execution to the police. Therefore, the police also say that it is absurd in the beginning, and some say that it makes sense to leave only the execution part to us. Therefore, it is a little questionable whether we can continue to carry out the argument that we will leave the execution to the police as we will request the warrant again in the future, especially at a time when it is controversial whether the appointment itself is possible.

[Anchor]
I think there will be no choice but to complain inside the police. Are we the best men? I heard that this voice is already coming out.

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, the execution of a warrant is one of the investigation processes, but if so, the police have no choice but to say that it is right to hand over the entire investigation to us if they are to leave this to us.

[Anchor]
What do you think of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit? The police seem to be speaking out, so can the Airborne make a different decision in this situation? Like Jae-chop?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Of course, there's a possibility.However, looking at the story so far, it seems that they will still exercise their right to investigate. Of course, it is said that it will consider the transfer of the case at a certain stage, but it seems that it will still be investigated at this point. If we were seriously considering the transfer of the investigation, this problem would not have occurred. He wouldn't have sent such an official letter saying he would have the right to investigate and be entrusted with the execution, but there seems to have been no serious review of this until at least this point, but in the end, the situation is strongly questioned once again about the will and ability of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, so there is a possibility that the position will change in the future.

[Anchor]
Let's continue to talk about the investigation of President Yoon's case. If the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit transfers the right to investigate, some people will question the meaning of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but if you look at it in advance, it's been about four years, and there are no cases where arrests or arrest warrants have been issued. I think it's a part where you can't help but wonder about your ability or skills.

[Jeongbin Seo]
It seems that such questions are bound to be raised more strongly. Even when there was a problem with the investigation right in the first place, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said it would actively exercise the investigation right, and even the execution of the warrant has been raised, but it is also true that questions have been raised about whether the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will have the will or ability to conduct such an investigation. Of course, while executing the first warrant, although it ended in failure, on the one hand, there was a lack of will or ability to investigate, but there was also an opinion that we should wait and see on that point as we have gone on to execution. However, it is right that it is time to raise suspicions that there is clearly a problem with such will or ability to entrust the execution any longer. From the point of view of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, if they tried to execute this as they did in the first round, they could have tried to execute it again with the cooperation of the police. In addition, it may have fully considered the situation of reinforcing manpower through cooperation and trying again, but it seems that the decision to leave the job without such execution and not consulting with the police in advance cannot avoid criticism that the investigation authority was unreasonably claimed from the beginning, even though it was not capable of execution.

[Anchor]
In a way, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is lethargic, and such criticism is inevitable. Meanwhile, the Presidential Security Service, which claims to be a guard, has also been spotted building several bus barriers and barbed wire around the presidential residence. Then, the second execution will be carried out someday, but isn't there a situation where you're concerned about physical conflict again?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Looking at the current situation, it seems that they are more thoroughly preparing to prevent the execution of the warrant than in the first, so the timing cannot be expected, but if the warrant is attempted again, there will be a much stronger armed conflict than in the first. Since there is already controversy over the illegality of the warrant and the execution of the warrant at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, we need to see who will get the warrant and how it will be executed in the future.As the controversy is increasing, it seems that this will eventually be a situation where stronger physical force will be exercised to prevent the execution of the warrant.

[Anchor]
We've shown it on the screen recently, so you can see more buses blocking the door than the bus wall in front of the residence we broadcast live on the 3rd. It looks a little more strengthened than before. In the midst of this, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has actually said that they will apply for an extension of the arrest period, but it has not been reported yet whether they have applied, but is there a reason why this procedure has been applied for an extension of the arrest period without the execution of an actual warrant?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, what steps the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will take if the first warrant execution fails and the warrant deadline ends. First of all, there were rumors that they would request a warrant again and that they would request an arrest warrant again, and on the other hand, there were quite a lot of opinions that they would not and would immediately request an arrest warrant. However, in the end, it seems that they will extend the period of the arrest warrant, so they will request it again. I think this is even considering the possibility of not being cited when requesting an arrest warrant. In order for an arrest warrant to be issued, it may be a requirement to refuse to attend without justifiable reasons, but in the case of an arrest warrant, concerns about flight and destruction of evidence must be clarified. Therefore, it is easy to receive a request for an arrest warrant again because it has been received before, but can these points be sufficiently proved when an arrest warrant is requested? In addition, if it is dismissed after requesting this, it seems that it has taken the method of re-claiming the arrest warrant as it was before.

[Anchor]
You pointed out that the process of obtaining an arrest warrant is more complicated than an arrest warrant, but even if you get an arrest warrant, you have to go through the same process of recruiting, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. If the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit requests an arrest warrant like this, of course, President Yoon said that if he requests an arrest warrant, he can comply with the procedure if he requests it legally, but the basic premise is that it should be a legitimate warrant request, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit cannot request a legitimate warrant because it does not have the right to investigate. If so, whether the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit re-requests an arrest warrant or an arrest warrant, President Yoon is in a situation where he can say the same thing. If so, even if an arrest warrant is issued by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, there is a high possibility that they will not comply with it.

[Anchor]
It must be related to the same story of the president, but the president filed a complaint against 11 people, including Senior Superintendent of Public Offenses Oh Dong-woon, in connection with the execution of the arrest warrant.

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. At that time, he requested an illegal warrant and filed a complaint for illegal execution by obtaining it. Of course, from the contents of the accusation, I think it is a little difficult for such a crime to be actually established. Of course, there has been controversy over the legality of the warrant, but the Western District Court dismissed President Yoon's objection and decided that the warrant itself was legal, so if this is premised, it would be difficult for the head of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to be actually punished or a criminal charge to be established.

[Anchor]
I think I saw it like this because the objection itself was problematic. in a court of law

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, the court also presupposes that the method of arguing over a warrant is legality or substantive examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, but the method of filing an objection other than this procedure is not a legitimate procedure prescribed by the law. However, rather than dismissing it in that way, he explained it in detail by examining the contents and specifically revealing the legality of the warrant.

[Anchor]
Regarding the backlash, he said that he thought it was not illegal enough to cancel the issuance of the arrest warrant itself and make it not. Security Minister Park Jong-joon said, "If you comply with the execution of an arrest warrant, this is rather a dereliction of duty." How can we analyze this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
This part seems to be the same as the previous security service claim. The Security Agency said that the refusal in the first execution was ultimately a request for a warrant from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which had no investigative power, and that an illegal warrant was issued, and I think it is at the level of confirming this once again. So, of course, I have a question as to whether the security service, not the court, can judge the illegality of the warrant. And since the Western District Court has already judged the legality of the warrant, I think it is a little difficult to see this argument as more convincing compared to the existing argument.

[Anchor]
Yoon's side has long argued that the impeachment trial takes precedence over the investigation. He claimed that he is not responding to the investigative agency's arrest, but he will attend the impeachment hearing. How do you see this part?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, the reason why we are focusing on the impeachment trial is that it is a judge dealing with whether or not the president's position will be maintained, so we have to think about it most importantly. On the other hand, the attitude toward the impeachment trial seems to focus on this because it is a political judgment, so it will have the effect of showing this attitude and raising support, and furthermore, there is room to affect not only the impeachment trial but also criminal cases.

[Anchor]
President Yoon said he would attend the impeachment trial on an appropriate day. It is said that the first hearing date has been set for the 14th, is there a possibility of attending in person?

[Jeongbin Seo]
It is also possible to interpret that he may not appear on the first date yet. The variable is that when the first date is set, the warrant has already been issued, so whether it is within the expiration date, or whether it has been attempted to execute it, these are likely to be variables. If a warrant is issued, this problem can overlap with the execution of the warrant in the process of moving for attendance, so I think the attendance will be determined by whether the warrant was actually issued again at this point and to what extent the execution was attempted.

[Anchor]
In this way, President Yoon's pleading date has been designated first from the 14th to the 16th, the 21st, the 23rd, and February 4th. Does the Constitutional Court usually set a hearing date about five times?

[Jeongbin Seo]
It is not a big legal problem to set it collectively like this, and in particular, if it is a judgment that should be made quickly, these dates can be designated at intervals of several days in advance.

[Anchor]
How does it compare to the case of former President Park Geun Hye?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Likewise, in the case of former President Park Geun Hye, as far as I know, the hearing date was set in advance for a certain period of time, and there was nothing inappropriate about it.

[Anchor]
Speaking of the Constitutional Court, today was the first meeting of judges since the eight-member system. What kind of content did it come and go here?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, I think the key here will be the most important thing about the impeachment trial against President Yoon. In fact, there have already been quite a variety of defenses from both sides, especially from President Yoon's lawyer, even in the first and second defense preparation periods. For example, there were discussions on the issue of the ability to testify in the minutes of the National Assembly, or the issue of rebellion should not be excluded or excluded. And since there have been various arguments, including that there are problems under the National Assembly law, of course, these parts will be dealt with in the most detail when the hearing is held, but I think it will be a place to check the issues once again in advance and mainly talk about future procedures.

[Anchor]
In the future, we will discuss various issues, and the Constitutional Court had a precedent 30 years ago in 1995, when the conditions of a legitimate civil war were examined. What is it about?

[Jeongbin Seo]
This is a recent story, but in the past, the prosecution has not prosecuted Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo for the civil war of the new military forces. The reason is that there is no intervention in a so-called successful coup. That was the logic. The complainants objected to this and filed a constitutional petition, and of course, they were not sentenced to the end. The sentence was not made by dropping it the day before the last sentence, but it was drafted at that time and you can refer to the contents. If you look at the contents, even if it is a successful civil war, you can consider several requirements. That's why the possibility of punishment is definitely possible. If you look at the standards, the first is whether the act of what appears to be a civil war is to eventually restore the basic liberal democratic order and to restore national sovereignty, and secondly, whether the best efforts were made to peacefully resolve the conflict in accordance with the procedures set out in the Constitution and laws, and whether there was no other option. Also, whether there were appropriate and best measures to minimize the damage. In addition, it was possible to judge the charges of rebellion based on these five requirements, whether the rights relief procedures were prepared in case of damage. So, in President Yoon's impeachment trial, we can't bring this as it is, but because the incident at the time was an act in which soldiers without power eventually staged a coup and seized power with it, and in this case, since President Yoon declared martial law while he was in power, it is not a matter that can be used head-on, but at least this standard itself seems to be borrowed or considerable. So it seems that there is certainly room for the Constitutional Court to judge according to these standards.

[Anchor]
You mentioned it briefly a while ago, but didn't the National Assembly impeachment exclude the crime of rebellion? What is your intention?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, it seems that the intention is to receive the impeachment trial's hearing more quickly. Consistent with the argument that he has even committed a crime of rebellion specifically on the charge of rebellion, that's why he should be impeached, he has to watch the progress of the ongoing criminal case. Therefore, the constitutional trial seems to have been excluded for speed because there is a possibility that the hearing may be delayed depending on the progress of the criminal case, but of course, it is possible. Because the basic facts are the same. Because the fact that the act of declaring martial law, which is contrary to the Constitution, is the same, it is legally possible to exclude this, and the Constitutional Court seems to be in the same position. However, from President Yoon's point of view, the most central reason for the impeachment was the suspicion that it was an allegation of rebellion, and that the crime of rebellion was due to suspicion. However, if you exclude this important content, doesn't it mean that the impeachment itself has a problem? So, it is more about justification than legality, so it is a part that can be used as an attack point against it, so it is expected that there will be considerable debate on this point in the future.

[Anchor]
As you said, the ruling and opposition parties have different positions on the speed of the trial rather than legality, so the controversy seems to continue. I pointed out this content with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Thank you.