[News UP] "Entertainment" Corruption Investigations Unit...Will the second warrant be executed properly?

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Jae-hee, Anchor Cho Jin-hyuk
■ 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 News UP] when quoting.


[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit tried to entrust the police with the execution of President Yoon's arrest warrant, but reversed it again. There was a commotion in this regard, and let's look at the contents with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Please come in.

[Jeongbin Seo]
How are you?

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police wrestled all day yesterday over whether only the execution of the warrant could be delegated to the police, and eventually returned to its original position. I'm confused about what law and what law are colliding with this confusion. Please explain it to me.

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, I think it was basically caused by the interpretation related to Article 81 under the current Criminal Procedure Act. This regulation was based on the fact that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said it could entrust the execution of this warrant. The content of this regulation is that the warrant is executed by the judicial police under the direction of the prosecutor.

Therefore, the public prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit was in the position that it could be assigned according to this regulation, just like general prosecutors. However, the police refuted this. Pointing out that there is a legal flaw, he refuted that the prosecutor does not have the authority to command the police in the past due to the adjustment of the prosecutor's and police's investigation rights, rather than the relevant regulations. Therefore, even if this regulation is followed, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit cannot entrust such execution. In the end, after yesterday afternoon, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit turned to the position that they would lead the execution of the warrant and receive support from the police, but in the end, many believe that the problem of adjusting the investigative power and the aftermath eventually led to such a problem.

[Anchor]
So, I think we can summarize that the conclusion is that we went back to the past and went back to the original state. However, as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit shakes hands, there are concerns that it will be an obstacle to the future investigation of President Yoon. What do you think of this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, I think it's right for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to evaluate what happened yesterday as a handshake. Because since the talk of entrusting the execution to the police came out, some have criticized that it is not legally possible. And because the police immediately refuted that there was a legal flaw and that if they followed the instructions, it would be an abuse of authority, so less than a day later, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit actually shook hands, returning to its original position. The problem is that President Yoon is going to subcontract the execution of the warrant from the time this was mentioned. He has continued to criticize that there is no legal basis. Then, although the issue has been sorted out again, President Yoon's side can take advantage of this and attack. In particular, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will continue to criticize whether it has admitted that it does not have the right to investigate, so it is expected to have a negative impact on the investigation.

[Anchor]
He said that it would have been a case of igniting a little more controversy over the legitimacy of the investigation. There is an analysis that the most fundamental cause of the current investigation confusion is that the authority is intertwined between these investigative agencies. Can you tell me in an easy way to understand?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. Once the prosecution and police's right to investigate was separated and adjusted, the police investigated most crimes and the prosecution had the right to investigate only some crimes. As a result, there has been a controversy between the prosecution and the police over who has the right to investigate these unexpected charges of rebellion. Therefore, from the beginning, the police have the right to investigate allegations of rebellion.
On the other hand, the prosecution is a related crime, and the prosecution can also take the right to investigate this part. There's been a lot of controversy because of this argument.

On the other hand, even in the case of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, they have the right to investigate high-ranking government officials, but in the end, they said they could investigate the charges of rebellion related to related crimes, and in the end, there has been controversy over who has the right to investigate this, so I think this problem has resulted in the current situation. In fact, to dig further, this confusion may have been prevented if there was such a legal basis in advance to resolve such situations in which there were overlapping investigative rights. Or, even if there was a regulation on a control tower that could solve the problem of overlapping investigative rights, these problems could have been sorted out early. Of course, there is a situation that is completely unpredictable, but it is also seen as a problem that it is necessary to have grounds for traffic arrangement in preparation for such a situation.

[Anchor]
Aren't these complex issues automatically adjusted when the special prosecutor is launched? In the end, there is an analysis that it is in the hands of acting authority Choi Sang-mok, what do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think that's right. Once the independent counsel is launched, of course, these controversies can be resolved because the independent counsel can handle such investigations and even prosecutions after the investigation. The question is whether the special prosecutor will pass or the bill will pass. According to reports, acting president Choi Sang-mok has vetoed the special prosecutor's office once and is left with a re-decision on January 8 at the earliest. The problem is that the requirements for the special prosecutor law to pass require the attendance of more than a majority of the National Assembly and the consent of more than two-thirds of the attendance. Given the current situation, the ruling party is unlikely to agree, and if so, it will be difficult to re-decide. If we try to launch the special prosecutor again, we will eventually have to open a new extraordinary session and propose another special prosecutor. If acting Choi demands a re-decision, the current situation will be repeated. In the end, I think it is right to see this way that the independent counsel is carried out in the hands of the acting president.

[Anchor]
We've explained it in subtitles.Ma is now being prosecuted one after another related to martial law. However, there has never been an investigation into the president of Yoon Suk Yeol. Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun will hold his first trial preparation date on the 16th. Does President Yoon judge that it is advantageous to see and respond to legal judgments about them before the investigation into him begins in earnest?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think so. Of course, the legal judgment here does not even mean the judgment. This is because it is virtually impossible for some people involved to be judged before President Yoon is investigated on such complex matters, but it may be more advantageous for President Yoon to look at what is drawn in the process of the trial of those involved and investigate. Therefore, it is possible to check in advance what related logic the prosecution brought and what the defense logic of those involved is when the trial proceeds. Also, what are the contents submitted as major evidence in the relevant case? And who are the witnesses to be called after that? Furthermore, in this process, what kind of atmosphere is the court forming and leading the case? If we can look at these things in advance, I think President Yoon will be watching these trends very importantly because it would be much more advantageous to understand these contents a little more, devise appropriate countermeasures, and conduct investigations than to conduct investigations without information.

[Anchor]
What drew attention recently was that President Yoon Suk Yeol's name came out more often than former Minister Kim in the indictment of former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun. On top of that, the indictment contains details of how President Yoon Suk Yeol instructed him, and President Yoon's strategy could change after seeing this, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's quite possible. This indictment is basically when the prosecutor investigates, there is some evidence and the facts are written based on that evidence. According to former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's indictment, it has been confirmed that President Yoon mentioned and prepared for such martial law beforehand, and that there were specific instructions such as whether to enter the National Assembly by instructing the commanders or dragging lawmakers out of the country. According to recent findings, there are more statements about how to mobilize troops from December 1st and that all these plans will be changed at the Cabinet meeting right before the declaration of martial law.

Therefore, from President Yoon's point of view, it is possible to predict that there is some evidence supported by the contents of the indictment, and we can guess to some extent the contents and types of evidence. Therefore, I think creating a pleading method based on the contents of the indictment is clearly what President Yoon is considering.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, a new refutation logic came out yesterday from the president of Yoon Suk Yeol. It was argued that if the crime of rebellion could be investigated by going into the crime of rebellion, the opening of the investigation should be an abuse of authority, but it was not possible to investigate the crime of rebellion for abuse of authority. So if the president can be investigated for abuse of authority, past presidents should probably have been called to investigative agencies whenever civic groups filed complaints. But I'm arguing that there hasn't been such a case. What kind of error can this be considered in legal interpretation?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Rather than an error, of course, President Yoon's side will make all the configurations and make this argument in every possible way. Of course, that's something you can do, but it's a question of whether it's convincing or legally valid. Regarding the privilege to remove fluoride, it is too natural that the president cannot be prosecuted for crimes other than civil war or foreign exchange crimes. However, if this is the case, it is not possible to investigate other criminal charges, and many views interpret that it is possible to investigate but not prosecute.

Therefore, one weakness of President Yoon's argument is that even if it is true that such an argument is premised, such an investigation can be carried out, so it is possible to investigate abuse of authority and therefore investigate rebellion as a related crime. That's why there's a problem with this. On the other hand, if so, it means that the law must investigate related crimes, such as basic abuse of authority, and investigate such charges during the investigation process. It does not stipulate this. Therefore, it is not necessary to investigate the relationship between the ancestors and the descendants, so I think it is a claim that is still a little lacking in persuasion in this regard.

[Anchor]
Meanwhile, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit re-applied an arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol yesterday. But I didn't disclose the expiration date, but how much does it usually come out?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Usually, a warrant is written and issued to execute within a week. However, it will be practically difficult to execute the warrant for about 7 days because the court will make a judgment. So if you say you need to extend the deadline further, you can set a period of more than 7 days and issue a warrant.

[Anchor]
It's usually a week, but you mean you can make a separate request longer than that. So, will the warrant take effect as soon as it is issued?

[Jeongbin Seo]
If you don't impose any special restrictions at the start, it can be considered effective as soon as it is issued.

[Anchor]
If the warrant comes out again, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will re-execute the arrest warrant. There are also various prospects for the strategy, so the possibility of even deploying a police commando, what are the prospects for this part?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, there was a problem that there were so many people such as security agencies and they could not execute it because they interfered strongly in the first round, so it is understood that there are now talks about the need to deploy special forces or special forces. In particular, given the recent situation, the security agency seems to be saying that they are strengthening their defense. It is not an easy matter for a lawyer to judge the possibilities and other measures, but when summarizing the stories so far, it seems reasonable to say that we should prepare and execute a stronger physical force. In addition, even if not, there is basically a lack of numbers in terms of manpower, so it seems that a method of more manpower and more siege and pressure is being considered.

In addition, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has issued such warnings before the last execution that if it interferes with such execution, it could constitute obstruction of public affairs, and I think this is a meaningful part. So, in order to prevent physical conflict, I think that the first thing to consider is how to execute a warrant without such a physical conflict through such warnings through the establishment of a crime of obstruction of justice.

[Anchor]
So in a word, I think it's a situation where a more powerful and powerful collision is expected. Therefore, there is a prospect that Park Jong-joon, the head of the bodyguard, can be arrested first and then executed a warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol. Is this feasible?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, I think there is a possibility. The reason why I think so is that if the head of the security agency says that the crime of obstructing the execution of public affairs is established, if an arrest warrant is issued and it can be executed first, the security agency's response will be slightly different. In fact, the question must be reviewed first whether an arrest warrant can be issued. Of course, because they have asked for summons several times, they have not responded, and they are unlikely to respond for the time being, they seem to meet the requirement of issuing such an arrest warrant, which is to refuse to attend without justifiable reasons.However, the head of the security and the security are expected to protest greatly whether there is a justifiable reason or not.

Even unusually, the security chief is not legitimate for the execution of such a warrant through a public statement. Also, even if an arrest warrant is requested and issued, the security service can refuse the arrest because there are legitimate reasons to question the legality of the arrest warrant again because it has already expressed its opinion that if the security is not carried out, it could be a dereliction of duty. Because I can use this logic again, I think it will be difficult to proceed to actual execution again.

[Anchor]
And let's point to the point where the most controversy is taking place in politics right now. There is a heated debate over the exclusion of rebellion from the reasons for President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment, and whether this is a revision of the reason for impeachment, a simple change in wording, or even a re-decision on the prosecution if any judgment is made. How do you judge
?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, what is now a problem is that the impeachment bill passed the prosecution by specifically stating that the act of declaring martial law violates the Constitution as well as that it constitutes a crime of rebellion. However, in the process of progress, I will exclude the part that the crime of rebellion is established, and in fact, I will withdraw it. That's why the National Assembly said it would focus only on whether martial law itself violates the Constitution, which eventually caused problems in this area. In fact, many opinions now say that if the basic facts are the same, even if these parts are withdrawn, they can be judged.

In the end, it is a matter for the court to determine whether this part violates the Constitution or even the allegations of rebellion will be a problem, and if the facts are the same, there is no problem. On the other hand, the fact that President Yoon's current allegations of civil war are established is an important issue that the opposition party argued at the core during the impeachment process, but avoiding it means that the impeachment is actually wrong. If this impeachment case is maintained, it is refuting that a re-decision is necessary.

The Constitutional Court once stated that there are no related laws and regulations and that it is possible to proceed, but it is expected that President Yoon will strongly oppose this part in the future, and of course, there is no legal provision that requires a re-decision, but it is expected that President Yoon will continue to make this argument to examine the legitimacy of impeachment itself by combining other reasons.

[Anchor]
I see. We took a closer look at the martial law investigation. I was with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin
. Thank you.