[New Square 2PM] Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, "Executing Yoon's Arrest Warrant" as a police officer...Constitutional Court Controverses 'Withdrawal of Crimes of Insurrection'

■ Host: anchor Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Starring: former Constitutional Court researcher Noh Hee-beom, lawyer Lim Joo-hye

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 2PM] when quoting.

[Anchor]
The execution deadline for the arrest warrant for the president of Yoon Suk Yeol expires at midnight today. There are about 10 hours left, but there are observations that today's warrant re-execution was canceled. As the Constitutional Court is speeding up its impeachment trial, the battle is intensifying over the "crime of rebellion under the criminal law," one of the reasons for impeachment. Today, we will be joined by two lawyers, Roh Hee-beom, a former constitutional researcher at the Constitutional Court, and Lim Joo-hye. Please come in. First of all, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit sent an official letter to the National Police Agency appointing the execution of President Yoon's arrest warrant, and the police announced their position a little while ago. There is a lot of controversy over the violation of the command of the prosecutor's arrest warrant at the It said that the execution is the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and that the appointment of command is a legal matter. At the same time, he reiterated this policy that he would maintain a cooperative system, not a demand for re-transfer.

And since the previous case has already been transferred to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the subject of the warrant court is the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. And I heard the previous case. Since the police have never executed the warrants issued by the prosecution, so if the warrants issued by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit are executed by the police, legal problems can arise in this situation. Therefore, the special team argues that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit should be the subject of the execution of the warrant because of this problem. And there was a police position that they did not expect that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit sent an official letter before the consultation was completed.

Additional arrest attempts will be carried out with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. He also said that he plans to investigate hard under the collaborative headquarters system and that there will be no discussion on re-transfer. It's complicated in this regard, so I think we need to hear from the two of you. First of all, researcher, what is it about?

[Roh Hee-beom]
First of all, from the perspective of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, it was not executed due to a lack of manpower, right? And in fact, today, the head of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit judged that it was difficult to execute it with the current personnel of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, so he was forced to comply with Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Act to direct the execution of the arrest warrant to the National Investigation Headquarters. Of course, from the perspective of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the command was given in accordance with Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 200-6, the provisions applied mutatis mutandis to the arrest warrant. It's executive command.

There is definitely a legal basis for that. If you look at the national capital's position now, it seems that there is a legal controversy because there is no such case because there has been no police execution of a warrant requested by the prosecutor so far. Anyway, I said that the National Police Agency will continue to investigate this case in cooperation with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit under the cooperative system. In that regard, I would like to make a positive evaluation of the noodles.

Because this case was the execution of an arrest warrant for a sitting president, and I never expected the security service to block legitimate law enforcement. And rather than criticizing the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or the police for failing to execute this, I think it is actually right to criticize the president and the presidential security office. However, regarding the execution of the arrest warrant, I hope that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will be the main agent and the police will actively cooperate to make legal law enforcement procedures as soon as possible.

From the standpoint of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the National Investigation Agency, it is clear that the cause now is, in essence, to execute a legitimately issued arrest warrant and to quickly investigate crimes against civil war. In this regard, I think it is right to continue to maintain cooperative relationships with the National Police Agency and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and quickly execute arrest warrants within the legal framework.

[Anchor]
Regarding this issue today, so who is the subject of the execution, President Yoon's side also came out in this regard. President Yoon's position is as to whether it was subcontracted or not.

[Lim Joo-hye]
In this regard, the President of Yoon Suk Yeol said that it is not a part that can be handed over to the police again by taking off a part of the whole as if it were subcontracting the construction. As you mentioned earlier, the reason why the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit handed over the execution part of this warrant to the police is that the Criminal Procedure Act can be applied mutatis mutandis, and Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that judicial police officials can execute warrants under the direction of prosecutors.

Rather than saying that there is a big legal problem in itself, as you have explained earlier, if the police apply for a warrant, the prosecutor will request it and the police will execute it. In the case of a warrant requested by the prosecutor, the prosecutor will execute it because the internal organization of the prosecution has the personnel in charge of the execution. Therefore, if you apply for a warrant at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit with consistent logic, it is a problem to be solved within the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. They say that only execution cannot be separated. The president of Yoon Suk Yeol is also taking this as a problem and arguing that it is not legal and that legal problems will inevitably arise.

[Anchor]
And a little while ago, the police decided to execute an additional arrest attempt with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but then I understand that they will attempt to arrest the president in the future. When can we expect this?

[Lim Joo-hye]
He says he will try additionally for now, but the validity of the arrest warrant announced earlier is until 12 o'clock today. It's already past the afternoon, so there's only a few hours left. In reality, it seems difficult to try to arrest again within this period. However, since the police and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit are working together and investigating within the framework of the Joint Investigation Headquarters, the position to cooperate in any way seems to be solid. So, as he is expressing his position to extend the validity of this warrant, it is expected to be executed once again after preparation, but it is difficult to try it prematurely because it has already been canceled once. It seems necessary to discuss how to cooperate internally, and if so, who really wants to be the subject of enforcement.

[Anchor]
Regarding the execution of the arrest warrant of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, various voices of criticism continue to come out against the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. What do you think about this criticism, such as whether you didn't have the will from the beginning, why are you handing it over to the police again?

[Roh Hee-beom]
I don't think we can just criticize the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit tried to do its best to investigate and execute the warrant in accordance with its own due process, but there was a part that I did not expect strong resistance from the presidential security office. Didn't the whole nation actually see it as a live broadcast? In that sense, we can't just blame the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. And the deputy head of the airlift department also talked about it today.Ma has only about 50 people in total at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and only about 30 people can operate the execution of this warrant. Even with the assistance of judicial police officers, there is a certain limit to executing warrants through the resistance of the security office, which currently has about 200 to 300 people.

That's why the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is still clearly stating that the investigation will still be the subject while entrusting the execution of the warrant to the police. Now, a considerable part of the arrest warrant has not been executed, so the investigation into the president is not underway, but doesn't it say that they have already prepared all the newspapers internally? Therefore, I hope that we believe in the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police will actively cooperate under the cooperative system to focus on this essential part of the investigation, which requires us to quickly investigate the essential issues, execute the warrant in accordance with due process, and actively investigate them. So, I think it is most reasonable for everyone to join forces to quickly and efficiently investigate rebellion crimes, not to engage in power struggles between the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police.

[Anchor]
The execution of the arrest warrant was canceled due to the defense of the security service, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit sent an official letter to Acting President Choi Sang-mok asking him to direct the security service to cooperate, but he did not receive an answer. To what extent do you think acting Choi Sang-mok has the authority to sort out the current situation?

[Lim Joo-hye]
Choi Sang-mok is the acting president now. Since he is acting on behalf of the president, it has been controversial how far the acting president can work, but it is interpreted that the president can basically exercise the powers he can perform to maintain the status quo. Therefore, it is argued that the acting president Choi Sang-mok can exercise command and supervision over the security chief by acting as president, and the security chief can of course direct the security officers under him, so he can exercise command over the security agency at least for the normally issued warrant.

But in this regard, Acting President Choi Sang-mok does not say that the relevant agencies should consult according to the law in accordance with the procedures set by the law, that he has this level of stance, that he specifically conducts any command, or that he should cooperate with the security chief, so there is more criticism. On the other hand, acting president Choi Sang-mok cannot exercise such command or command over the bodyguard, so this situation is extremely exceptional and unpredictable, so these interpretations can be seen from both sides.

[Anchor]
I'd like to hear from the researcher about this, but how much do you think the authority of acting Choi Sang-mok is legally?

[Roh Hee-beom]
Acting President Choi Sang-mok can exercise all the powers of the President as currently granted in the Constitution. As the head of the administration, of course, he has command and supervision over the presidential security office and all the responsibilities of the presidential residence as well as the presidential office. With the warrant of a judge legally requested and issued by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit not being executed now, isn't the security office resisting it under the Security Act to the effect that it is not legal? That's the situation. In addition, the Senior Superintendent of Public Offices is asking the acting Superintendent of Public Offices to actively cooperate in the security office, but the fact that the acting Superintendent of Public Offices does not give such an order itself is quite a big problem.

As the president of a country, isn't there any conflict between state agencies in the application of laws? And basically, the president should talk to the security chief and instruct him to cooperate with the warrant's lawful execution at a time when the president is accused of being a prisoner of rebellion and the warrant issued legally by the court is not being executed. That's what I think. Now, the judicial system of the Republic of Korea is not working properly by not giving any instructions. And many people are anxious. Therefore, it is necessary to fulfill the constitutional responsibilities as a person acting on behalf of the president. And I think the fact that the acting chief executive is not exercising his authority properly is also a big problem that continues to be in this state of confusion. So, I think it is right to properly exercise the authority granted to you so that the investigation and trial process can be carried out as soon as possible.

[Anchor]
He's not doing what he has to do. In addition, Choi has remained silent on the request for cooperation from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but there was a request from Choi to support the police during the attempt to execute the arrest warrant on the 3rd. However, the acting head of the National Police Agency did not respond to the request for this part, could this be a crime of protest? What do you think?

[Roh Hee-beom]
Isn't it a legitimate execution of official duties to execute a warrant issued by a judge now? If it was clear that the security service's request for a bodyguard to defend its due service was intended to interfere with its due service, I don't know the facts exactly.E. If so, I don't think the police can follow an illegal request or instruction for cooperation. If you follow it, the legal system will be completely destroyed, and the Republic of Korea will be in a situation where it cannot be realized or implemented as a rule of law. So I think that the police's attitude is right now. In this regard, the police also gave a roundabout answer that this requires various judgments, but I think they made it clear that they cannot follow it because it is illegal.

[Anchor]
I want to hear the opinion of the lawyer, but some argue that it's a port call, and acting National Police Agency Commissioner Lee Ho-young said today, "I don't think it's a port call." At the same time, we discussed with the Seoul Metropolitan Government to follow the due process, what do you think about this?

[Lim Joo-hye]
In the end, I think we can only evaluate it as a situation in which we are telling each other that we should follow the due process by turning to Ping-Pong games. It's a really confusing situation for the people, but the security service says it's obligated to prevent the execution of such arrest warrants at a time when the security service maintains the status of the incumbent president. In this regard, request the deployment of additional police personnel and discuss it in a legitimate manner. As a result, when we look at the constitutional history, these situations, which even legislators could not predict, have occurred one after another, and as these parts are drawn into the realm of interpretation, it seems inevitable that people with different positions are interpreting the application of the law in the way they want.

[Anchor]
I'm continuing to point out legal issues with the two of them, and Park Jong-joon, the head of the bodyguard, unusually expressed his position in front of the camera. Let's listen to the content and continue with the story. I think it's quite unusual for the presidential security chief to express his position in front of the camera like this. How did you hear the announcement?

[Roh Hee-beom]
It is difficult for me to agree. First of all, since the execution of the arrest warrant is illegal or expedient, isn't it that you're going to protect it under the Presidential Security Act? However, the Seoul Western District Court announced yesterday that there was no problem with the arrest warrant of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and the arrest and search warrants issued by the Western District Court. That is why the execution of the arrest warrant turned out to be legitimate. Nevertheless, this is an expedient, illegal, because the chief of security arbitrarily interprets it.

And the purpose is to say that the execution of the arrest warrant is wrong, and not to leave it alone, but to prevent it. Then, how can our legal system work if the Korean judicial system is properly executed by a warrant issued by a judge? If the security agency refuses to execute the warrant just because it is unfair or illegal? Rather, if this arrest warrant is illegal, then there is a procedure for sufficient objection after the arrest warrant is executed. There are enough examinations of the legality of arrest warrants and objection systems.

It is right for us to disobey the constitution and the law in accordance with the procedures scheduled by the Constitution and receive rights relief in the process, and it is by no means our plan to ignore the judicial system that we are planning to do this on the grounds that the warrant issued by the judge itself is illegal. And at the very least, the high-ranking national official called the Presidential Security Service's disregard for the legal system of the Republic of Korea means that it must be held accountable. Obviously, I think that the part that hindered the execution of the warrant should be held legally responsible for obstructing the execution of public affairs and abuse of authority, including the chief of security, the deputy director, the general manager, and those involved.

[Anchor]
In the end, the chief of the security, the deputy chief, and the security officials have also been additionally booked by the police, so do you think it could be a variable in the process of re-enforcing the warrant in the future?

[Lim Joo-hye]
In the end, the security service is blocking the legitimate warrant, so in order to issue the warrant properly, there is even a possibility that major members of the security service will be issued arrest warrants. I've already asked the investigative agency to attend, but now I'm in charge of too much work, so it's difficult to attend right now, and I'm expressing my position to adjust the date later. If the investigation continues to the third round without responding to the second investigation this time, the investigative agency is expected to obtain warrants, or arrest warrants, at the same time to execute the arrest of President Yoon Suk Yeol.

[Anchor]
We have to wait and see what the security will look like in the future. First of all, Roh Hee-beom, a former constitutional researcher at the Constitutional Court, will stop talking today. Thank you for today. Lawyer Lim Joo-hye, let me ask you this part. President Yoon's side filed a complaint with the prosecution against 11 people, including Senior Superintendent of Public Offenses Oh Dong-woon, today. On what and what grounds did he file the complaint?

[Lim Joo-hye]
On the part of President Yoon Suk Yeol, although the execution failed last time, the attempt to execute the warrant on the 3rd is illegal. They have attempted to break into military secrets without permission, and they say they will file a complaint against them, saying that these parts constitute obstruction of the execution of special public affairs, injuries, violations of the Military Base and Military Facility Protection Act. In the end, the tone seems to be the same. Because the attempt to arrest Yoon Suk Yeol's president includes an illegal part, the people who participated in this illegal arrest are also considered to be taking this logic.

[Anchor]
As an extension of the allegations of illegality, President Yoon filed an objection to the Western District Court, asking for no arrest and search warrant execution. This was also rejected. The court refuted everything one by one, right?

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. An arrest warrant has already been issued by the President of Yoon Suk Yeol, but the validity period is 7 days, so he was trying to execute it with time. I filed an objection to this, saying that there was a problem with issuing an arrest warrant. In response, the Western District Court rejected the objection, refuting it one by one, and first, there were three major parts that President Yoon Suk Yeol saw as a problem. First of all, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the authority to investigate the crime of rebellion. In this regard, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has the authority to investigate the charge of abuse of authority and because it is a case related to the crime of rebellion based on the same facts that can be tied together.

Secondly, where was the warrant filed, this was the question. The court judged once again that the part requested by the Western District Court, not the Central District Court, was intended to facilitate the issuance of warrants, and that there is no legal problem because the application was made in the area where the presidential office belongs. Finally, in regard to the exceptions to the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act to this warrant, if you want to search and seizure an area that falls under military or official secrets that the Presidential Office refused to search and seizure before Articles 110 and 111, you must search with the approval of the head of the area in charge of that area.

It wasn't a seizure warrant this time, but in order to secure President Yoon Suk Yeol's personal safety, he has to enter the site and search, so a search warrant is issued along with an arrest warrant. President Yoon Suk Yeol argued that judges cannot make exceptions to the matters set by legislators, but the court dismissed this as sufficiently possible as a document within the interpretation of the law, confirming that the issuance of the warrant was legal. In response, the president of Yoon Suk Yeol said it was unacceptable and said he would appeal again to the Supreme Court.

[Anchor]
Earlier, the National Police Agency held a briefing. There is an additional police position. First of all, he said he would consider whether to appoint additional security agents who interfere with the execution. There was also a saying that they would actively arrest the security service staff to prevent the execution of the second warrant. And it seems that there were questions about personnel from the presidential office and the members of the State Council. Presidential Chief of Staff Chung Jin-suk is currently adjusting the date of his attendance, and regarding Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, he is adjusting the date after the second round of requests for attendance. This breaking news came in together. He hinted at dissatisfaction, saying he would consider re-appealing President Yoon's case to the Supreme Court. If you appeal again, how do you see the possibility that the court will accept it?

[Lim Joo-hye]
Of course, it is not that all re-appeals are not accepted, and the number of cases is 50:50, but in general, re-appeals are not recognized. So, it seems highly likely that the warrant will be judged legitimate for now. However, it seems that the part that can be most legally problematic right now is the part that lists exceptions to the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the warrant. There are exceptions or restrictions on seizure and search in cases where the criminal procedure law, legislator, has at least military secrets or important official information, and it seems worth discussing again whether the judge can lift this.

Of course, in Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court is primarily concerned with military secrets or official secrets, but this does not mean that it is impossible to search and seizure unconditionally because it is not a confidential place. Therefore, the logic is fully accepted now, but President Yoon Suk Yeol will file another appeal based on this.

[Anchor]
Now let's talk about the Constitutional Court. Controversy is intensifying over the exclusion of rebellion from the reasons for impeachment against the president. Let's listen to the related recording together. It may be difficult for us to understand in general, but the National Assembly will virtually withdraw the crime of rebellion under the criminal law. What does this mean?

[Lim Joo-hye]
In the ongoing impeachment trial against President Yoon Suk Yeol by the Constitutional Court, there were various reasons that the National Assembly had no choice but to impeach him. It is stated in the impeachment prosecution, and the main reason among them is to act that is a crime of rebellion under the criminal law. It could be this part. However, what can be a very complex issue in this regard is whether this action violates the Constitution in the space of the Constitutional Court. So we see if we have reached the point where we can't perform the duties of the president. Of course, if you did something that violated any law, there was a very serious reason for not being able to perform the president's duties.

However, it is not the Constitutional Court that determines whether it is criminally punished or whether it can be received, but eventually the Criminal Court. So, in the end, the Constitutional Court does not judge that President Yoon Suk Yeol should be responsible for rebellion, but the Constitutional Court now judges whether he can serve as president or not.

Therefore, the National Assembly's position is that the establishment of this rebellion will eventually be treated as a criminal trial in the criminal court, and at least in this impeachment trial, whether the facts that constitute the rebellion remain the same. 12.3 The National Assembly's position is to judge only what constitutional problems the declaration of emergency martial law has and whether it has reached the point where it is impossible to perform the presidency normally.

On the other hand, the most controversial part of the impeachment was the crime of rebellion when the prosecution was first introduced, but the reason why the ruling party and the president of Yoon Suk Yeol say they will go to the Constitutional Court without the crime of rebellion is to turn the clock of this constitutional trial quickly and return quickly for the early presidential election. After all, this is not a steamed bun without red beans, but a steamed bun without any steamed bun at all. I'm raising a problem by even making this metaphor.

[Anchor]
The ruling and opposition parties are sharply confronting each other. Let's listen to related remarks. As you heard, the Democratic Party of Korea argues that the act of rebellion is a violation of the Constitution, not a criminal law. They claim that the power of the people is the impeachment of an empty shell if the crime of rebellion is deleted. How should I judge this? How about
legally?

[Lim Joo-hye]
It's complicated. If you think about it, the possibility of impeachment decreases further if the crime of rebellion is eliminated. If so, I think you can ask the question, "Shouldn't the people's power agree?" However, the important part is that the basic facts are judged as they are. However, it is meaningless to discuss it in itself because it is a criminal part to consider whether the Constitutional Court is guilty of rebellion under the criminal law. However, since the Constitutional Court is not an authority to punish the President of Yoon Suk Yeol for rebellion, the main focus is to examine whether or not to dismiss the president in accordance with the function of the Constitutional Court. However, the part that can be questioned now is that the impeachment bill indicated the crime of rebellion, and the vote was held in the National Assembly accordingly.

If so, this means that if the crime of rebellion is eliminated, the impeachment bill should be raised again and examined once again. They're arguing that we need to vote again. Whether the basic facts are already the same and the December 3 emergency martial law has a constitutional problem. So, it's not necessary to vote again because it's the same to argue whether you can serve as president or not, and this is being raised together.

[Anchor]
The Constitutional Court, which claims the power of the people, should reject the impeachment and vote again in the National Assembly. How valid is this part legally?

[Lim Joo-hye]
However, the facts are included as they are until the December 3 emergency martial law, and did this attempt the martial law rights originally declared by the President under the Constitution for the purpose of national constitution even though it was not an emergency situation? It is the same that this part becomes an issue in the constitutional trial. In fact, it's not that there hasn't been a case like this at all. During former President Park Geun Hye's impeachment trial, bribery related to funding of the K-Sports Foundation was related to bribery under the criminal law, so the impeachment trial excluded this part and decided to impeach him. Since there is no such case, if the Constitutional Court judges it, it can proceed as it is if it is not a problem. However, since the hearing date is scheduled to be on the 14th, the Constitutional Court will clear up this part and pass it.

[Anchor]
The people's power seems to be criticizing this issue in connection with the trial of representative Lee Jae-myung, but if the crime of rebellion is excluded from the Constitutional Court's judgment, will it actually speed up?

[Lim Joo-hye]
There is definitely an aspect of an impeachment trial that should not be stretched. If the deadline takes too long, how confusing would it be to just watch our news now? There is an acting representative, and the head of the National Police Agency is also an acting representative. This situation, where everyone is an acting authority, can never be seen as desirable. Of course, the Constitutional Court's watch should proceed at the right pace under the command of the Constitutional Court judges, but if the crime of rebellion becomes an issue in impeachment, it is a very serious matter whether or not it will be criminally recognized as a crime of rebellion, and even if the investigation into those involved is carried out and the trial proceeds, it will take time for witnesses to be called and finally judged.

Then, since the constitutional trial also has some aspects of keeping pace with the results of the criminal trial, it may take a little longer if the crime of rebellion is included, so this is a kind of trick for the ruling party to proceed with anything quickly for the early presidential election. Criticism has been raised as to whether it was such a capital to escape the law.

[Anchor]
Then, will the Constitutional Court finally decide whether or not to remove the rebellion from the presidential impeachment? How can we expect them to decide?

[Lim Joo-hye]
In today's briefing by the Constitutional Court, you made it clear that it was not the position or command of the Constitutional Court to exclude the part of the rebellion. Basically, I think the process of organizing these parts was the preparation period for pleading. Since the impeachment trial cannot be extended indefinitely, it has gone through a process of organizing the part that will be included in the trial and how far it will be discussed. In this process, the National Assembly, which applied for an impeachment trial, also seems to have partially settled its position.

Accordingly, the President of Yoon Suk Yeol must actively exercise his right to defend himself, and the Constitutional Court is expected to organize other issues in preparation for the hearing, except for the crime of rebellion.

[Anchor]
The Constitutional Court has become an eight-member system. Acting President Choi Sang-mok was recommended to the National Assembly and appointed two people, and it became an eight-member system, and the first meeting of judges was held today. What kind of discussion will follow in this meeting of judges?

[Lim Joo-hye]
Since it was the first meeting as an eight-member system, there were two preparations for the defense. At this time, he seems to have had enough time to brief and explain the newly appointed judges on what was discussed, and how he will lead the constitutional trial in the future with an eight-member system. It seems that roles have been allocated to who will play what role. There is a huge difference between six and eight people. In the six-member system, impeachment would be done only when everyone agreed to impeach, but in the eight-member system, even if only six out of eight people voted for impeachment, the meaning would have changed significantly. In the end, I think we will have more impactful time to analyze related issues so that this trial does not stretch too much by holding a meeting of all judges every week.

[Anchor]
There is a lot of attention on when President Yoon will appear at the Constitutional Court and when he will appear. If he appears, will he be the first incumbent president in the impeachment trial?

[Lim Joo-hye]
It's going to be the first sitting president. Looking at this situation, the pleading date is scheduled for the 14th. And the hearing dates are very tight. It's held every Tuesday and Thursday, and five dates are already scheduled until early February. So just by looking at this, the Constitutional Court judges expressed their will to proceed with the impeachment trial very quickly and quickly, and President Yoon Seok-yeol also said that he can continue to attend the hearing and express his position.

President Yoon Suk Yeol was not obligated to attend the hearing on the preparation date, but in principle, he is allowed to attend the hearing on the day of the hearing, but if he does not attend more than two times, he can proceed without it. Even if he does not come out until the first date because he said he will continue to attend and make his position known, it is possible to attend on the third or fourth date and explain why he had no choice but to declare emergency martial law and this does not fall under the reason for impeachment.

[Anchor]
So far, I've pointed out legal issues with lawyer Lim Joo-hye. Thank you for talking today.