First arrest warrant failed to be executed...The bodyguard is "protective of ironclad".

■ Host: anchor Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Appearance: lawyer Kim Kwang-sam, lawyer Kim Sung-soo

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

[Anchor]
Since the execution of the first arrest warrant for Yoon Suk Yeol's president went nowhere, there have been growing doubts about the capabilities of the Airborne Division. With the political community at the center, the 'controversy over withdrawal of rebellion' in the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial continues. You just saw a press conference. Today, I will point out this part one by one with lawyer Kim Kwang-sam and lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Please come in. The validity period of President Yoon's arrest warrant expired at midnight yesterday, and controversy arose when it was reported that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit notified the police that the warrant was executed. Since then, positions from both sides have continued to emerge, but the process so far is a little complicated. I'd like to ask the lawyer to organize it.

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the validity period for which the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit received an arrest warrant was until midnight yesterday. As a result, there were observations that the warrant would be executed one more time, and there was talk that the morning of the 5th was the most likely, but there was no attempt to execute it in the morning of the 5th. If so, there were speculations that it would be done on the 6th, but it was reported on the morning of the 6th. What was reported was that around 9 p.m. on the 5th, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit sent an official letter to the police to assume the duties related to the execution. And the police will check the contents the next morning, and the National Police Agency will first announce at 2 p.m. that there is a concern about illegality in this regard.

If there is a dispute over the legality of this part, it seems that there is another problem in the future, but after making such a statement, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit seems to be shifting its position on the appointment of an arrest warrant at around 3:42 p.m. There are various opinions on this, and since the current arrest warrant period has expired, it has been reported that it has requested an arrest warrant again at 6:45 p.m. to extend the deadline for the arrest warrant, drawing new attention to how it will proceed in the future.

[Anchor]
In some cases, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit misinterpreted the relevant legal provisions. That's why you're confused, you said this, but how did you misinterpret it?

[Kim Kwang-sam]
The important thing is that under the current law, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have any authority for the police to direct the execution of the warrant. However, in the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the investigator, the chief, and the deputy head must be familiar with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit Act, but this is how I see it. Moreover, the regulations that are not currently in the Public Offices Act regarding the adjustment of the prosecution and police investigation rights are required to apply mutatis mutandis to the Criminal Procedure Act and the Prosecutor's Office Act, and the Public Offices' prosecutors are required to comply with the prosecutors. Then, if you look at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit Act, there is a clear provision that judicial police officers cannot be commanded when it comes to trials. And what was the most fatal error was the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit who issued the arrest warrant. However, I can't comprehensively entrust the police to enforce this.

Just by looking at the Airborne Division Act, you can ask the police for help when executing a warrant. But it might sound like we've got a warrant, so it's like the police are going to direct it on their own, to this effect. Since the police themselves review this, there are various prosecutor's office laws, criminal procedure laws, and police investigation rules. Looking at this, the police have no authority to enforce this and no authority to command the airborne office. So, this itself needs to be discussed in advance, but I sent an official letter that I would just take over without consultation, so from the police's point of view, there is a legal problem. So you can't do this because it has a legal issue. Since they expressed the opinion that it could be illegal, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit acknowledged all of that.

Then, how to execute the arrest warrant in the future, the police and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit have entered into prior consultation with it. Didn't you fail in the first round? So in the second round, the security of the presidential residence will be more thorough. Then it will be more difficult than the first one. Then, the arrest warrant is not yet extended, but a new arrest warrant is issued. Then, it has not been decided whether to issue it or not, so what should I do next time I get it issued? Of course, the subject of issuing and requesting warrants is the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, so it is correct that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit executes them. It's just that you can get help from the police.

[Anchor]
In the first execution process, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit lost face in many ways, but we have to wait and see what it will be like in the second round.
And there was some controversy when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit filed an arrest warrant with the Western District Court rather than the Central District Court, but yesterday again requested the Western District Court to extend the validity period. In this case, will the judge who issued the warrant issue it again? What do you think?

[Kim Sung-soo]
We'll have to wait and see if the same judge will do it. Currently, it is known that there are two judges in charge of warrants in the Seoul Western District Court. Therefore, in this case, it seems that it will have to be seen whether the same judge will do it or another judge will do it for this part that has been re-claimed. Since there are currently various controversies, I think the court will consider it a little.

[Anchor]
It's the same content and nothing has changed, right? Then, do you think the issuance, the deadline, and the speed will be faster? [Kim Sung-soo] There seems to be an observation that there is a high possibility of issuance because it is the same, and if so, I think the issuance time itself will be very fast because it has already been reviewed once.

[Anchor]
A little while ago, the Constitutional Court came up with a related position. I'll give you a breaking news. Yesterday, there is a report that the prosecution and the police were asked to send investigation records. There was also a statement that the president submitted an additional opinion as of January 6th and yesterday. And with the Constitutional Court's decision, the new dispute will not be the will of the sovereign. And it is said that the Constitutional Court has now stated that it will judge according to the law and conscience and that it will only hope for the people. Lawyer, the president submitted an additional opinion yesterday.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
I don't know what that's about. It's breaking news right now. However, I will not mind the current dispute at the Constitutional Court, but I will only look at the people, and the purpose of this statement is that the National Assembly's prosecution has now expressed its position on the withdrawal of the rebellion. And what I said was that I said this at the recommendation of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it is the Constitutional Court and the National Assembly prosecution that are attacking from the power of the people. Isn't the Democratic Party leading the National Assembly's prosecution right now? That's why there seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding about things like this. I said that the Constitutional Court never recommended it. So, as an extension of that, it seems that the new dispute now means whether or not to withdraw the crime of rebellion. I will only look at the people, which means that the Constitutional Court will be judged fairly in the future. I think they're talking about this.

[Anchor]
There is also a political controversy over the related content, so let's take a closer look at it in a little while. Let's talk a little more about the warrant request related to the execution of the warrant by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. This time, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit requested a warrant again and did not reveal the expiration date. What strategic reason should this be considered?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think it can be seen as a strategic reason. Didn't you know the expiration date was 7 days and you knew the end of this deadline? As a result, there was a part where I could guess when the execution would begin. However, in this case, I think it was the part that did not inform this information as strategically as possible about the part where supporters gathered by not telling the exact deadline and when the execution would take place. Another thing is the clandestine nature of the investigation. If such an arrest warrant and such a part correspond to the investigation process, there should be clandestine behavior, but since all of these parts are reported, I think there is a problem with this part, so I don't think it is clear about the warrant period.

[Anchor]
There's another breaking news just now, so I'll give it to you. This is what the prosecution said. A little while ago, I heard that I requested an arrest warrant again for a prosecutor who is suspected of violating the Political Fund Act. He is known to be quite close to President Yoon and his wife. During the 2018 local elections, he re-requested an arrest warrant for violating the Political Fund Act by receiving illegal political funds in connection with the party's recommendation of candidates.

The arrest warrant was rejected once. Further investigation was conducted to supplement the reasons for dismissing the first arrest warrant and further confirmed the facts about the reason for the arrest, such as the destruction of evidence and the fear of escape, so the reason for the request was re-applied. I'll organize the related information once more and deliver it to you when I get additional news. It took about 30 hours to get the first arrest warrant for the president, so what do you expect this time?

[Kim Kwang-sam]
First of all, we'll have to look at whether or not an arrest warrant is issued. However, the reason why the arrest warrant itself was re-claimed was because the suspect, President Yoon Suk Yeol, refused. So there's probably no problem with the issuance, so I see it like this. But wouldn't this be the second time we're going into the second round of execution? However, I think the second execution itself will be much more difficult than the first. The last time I entered, the door to the official residence was open. But first of all, there's a barrier to the car.

According to media reports now, isn't this wall a quadruple wall? Some of them also have barbed wire. Perhaps from the perspective of the presidential office, it is highly likely that he protected the president more like an ironclad one by using the first round as a mirror. Then, in the first round, because of the security guards, about 200 people formed a human chain, so they couldn't execute it. Then there might be more people this time. Even if it doesn't increase, I think we'll have prepared very thoroughly. Then, as a result, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit itself does not have the capacity to go and execute the warrant. in terms of manpower or experience Then, it's a question of how the police cooperate here, but it's usually manual that there should be about three times more people if there are about 200 people. That's why the most important thing is how many people you take with you. The second is about will. If you really decide to make an arrest in the second execution, you'll probably have to divide this into plans A, B, and C.

Last time, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit thought that if I just took an arrest warrant, I would respond smoothly, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is saying that. But the media said it would be difficult because our panel also came out, but only the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit did not predict it. If the bus is in quadruple mode like that, wouldn't Plan A have to break through to get closer to the president? Then, the bus, and the year of the human being. There is a high probability that the second execution will also fail if the plan is made for this and the preparation for it is not already prepared. There could be another impediment to secondary enforcement. There is a high possibility that lawmakers of the People's Power will gather at the official residence at that time. If there were 30 to 40 people last time and about 50 people participated in the presidential security, it could be more difficult to execute. So I think that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police are probably consulting in advance and planning a plan.

[Anchor]
However, during the first execution, at least the door was opened, but as you can see from the outside, barbed wire was installed. Also, didn't President Park Jong-joon, the head of the Presidential Security Service, stand in front of the camera himself? I'll fight until the end. I'll stop you until the end. How should I look at these unusual reactions?

[Kim Sung-soo]
There is a dispute over the legal interpretation because the security agency claims that the act of the security agency itself is a legitimate execution of official duties, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police claim that the execution of this warrant is legal. In this situation, it is inevitable that each side will be burdened with the part where they exercise their physical power more strongly.
And there may be areas where physical events are a problem between state agencies, and if someone gets seriously injured in the process, that can be another new fact. As a result, it is inevitable to be cautious, and unlike last time, if even lawmakers participate in the execution of the arrest warrant, as lawyer Kim said, the police and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit have no choice but to bear more burden on the exercise of physical force against the lawmakers for execution, so even if an arrest warrant is issued this time, there seem to be many variables as to whether the execution can be carried out and whether the execution can be carried out.

[Anchor]
In the midst of this, Chief of Security Park Jong-joon refused to comply with the police's request for a second summons today. Director Park is accused of obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and has been accused of rebellion. Let's watch the video. Chief Park is refusing to comply with the police investigation, claiming to be a presidential escort. He graduated from the police department as a senior and served as a police chief. He also served as deputy head of the Park Geun Hye government's presidential security office and is known to have once set his sights on politics. Let's look at the presidential security, what kind of organization is it and how it's organized. Under the decree of 'Unified Loyalty, Eternal Honor', we carry out our mission to ensure the absolute safety of the president and national factors. Security targets include the president and his family, the president-elect and his family, the former president and spouse, the acting president and spouse. In the early days of the founding of the country, the police were in charge of protecting the president.
The police station, which was established in February 1949, guarded former President Lee Seung-man, and after the April 19 Revolution in 1960, the Blue House Police Officer Dispatch from the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency took over.

The current presidential security system was established shortly after President Park Chung-hee took office in December 1963. The Presidential Security Office Act was enacted, and the Presidential Security Office was launched as a government body. During the military regime, the chief of security wielded enormous power to "drop birds," but after democratization in 1987, he suffered ups and downs depending on the regime. The Moon Lee Myung Bak administration, which aims to be a "small government," downgraded it to a vice minister-level bodyguard under the presidential office, but upgraded it back to a minister-level bodyguard under the Lee Park Geun Hye administration, and became a bodyguard again in the Kim Moon Jae In administration, which entered after the "state affairs manipulation" incident. So far, 20 people have come to the position of the head of the bodyguard or chief, with 13 from the military, four from the bodyguard and three from the police. Previously, the Moon Jae In government considered entrusting the security work to the Presidential Security Service under the National Police Agency. The arrest warrant execution has sparked controversy again over the role and scope of the security service.

[Anchor]
Before we take a closer look at the Presidential Security Service, I will tell you the breaking news that just came in. President Yoon's side has expressed its position on excluding civil war from the impeachment trial. A little while ago, lawyer Yoon Gap-geun said in his statement that withdrawing the rebellion from the grounds for impeachment does not simply mean that one of the two reasons for the impeachment is withdrawn, but 80 percent of the contents of the impeachment. Therefore, the withdrawal of the crime of rebellion constitutes a change in the reason for prosecution that is not recognized as the same as the existing reason for prosecution. In addition, the Democratic Party and the prosecution committee argue that withdrawing the crime of rebellion does not mean that they do not fight for rebellion, but that they look at whether the act of rebellion, not the crime of rebellion under the criminal law, violates the Constitution, but it is sophisticated and deceiving the people. At the same time, he stressed that the impeachment against the president should be dismissed because 80% of the reasons for the prosecution were withdrawn as the crime of rebellion was withdrawn. Since this is an important part, you should listen to the attorney's explanation, but the president's argument is that 80% of the reasons for prosecution are withdrawn as the crime of rebellion is withdrawn, and it should be dismissed. How about
?

[Kim Kwang-sam]
The most important thing about our rebellion is that an emergency martial law that violates the Constitution and the law has been declared, and the police and martial law forces have entered the National Assembly. And then he joined the election committee again, right? Then it's a crime of rebellion under the criminal law. If you look at it broadly, it's two categories with the Constitution. Constitution and law violations, and then rebellion. It's like two sides of a coin. So it's an essential aspect of the impeachment of the Constitution. So, in fact, at the time of impeachment, it was mainly the people and probably the lawmakers, rather than the constitution and the law violations. I put the most emphasis on rebellion. So, the impeachment motion was passed because the president was called a mob and a head of rebellion. That's why this was included in the reason for the impeachment. If that's the case, I told you that it's like two sides of a coin. Then, if you filed an impeachment, you can actually impeach them with those contents, but it doesn't mean that it's not a crime of rebellion, right?

Then, the Democratic Party of Korea keeps saying that it's a crime of rebellion, that it's a crime of rebellion, and that it's a second rebellion to Acting President Choi Sang-mok. So you can just go as it is. If it's the same content and it's only about organizing, there's no need to withdraw it. So, there is a controversy right now because of the expression of such an intention to withdraw. That's what the ruling party is saying. In order to quickly end this impeachment trial, if it goes against the Constitution and the law, there is no need to review whether it is a crime of rebellion, so isn't it to end it quickly? Then, if the impeachment trial is fast, the early presidential election will take place. Then there is a trial on Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act related to judicial risk, and is he trying to do it before this trial comes out? I'm showing this kind of doubt. But personally, even legally, this is quite a bit if we have a tree, we have branches and we have the main stem of the tree, right? You can hit an eggplant. Small things. However, the emergency martial law of violation of the Constitution and the law and the crime of rebellion are the most important stems of the tree. I don't think I should cut this. So isn't impeachment just impeachment the impeachment of a country's president? Then it's important to be quick. Then one of the most important things is fairness. So, whether impeachment is cited or dismissed, we have to go in a way that the people can understand, but we have expressed this explicitly just to expedite it. The intention is to withdraw the crime of rebellion in order to expedite the impeachment, and from this point of view, I think it is wrong from the perspective of the people as well as as a lawyer.

[Anchor]
Let's listen to lawyer Kim Sung-soo's opinion on this.

[Kim Sung-soo]
The contents of the impeachment resolution must be recognized first. And in that regard, impeachment ultimately looks at whether there is a violation of the law or the Constitution and whether it is serious enough to dismiss it. The facts are the same now, but the legal issue itself will be questioned only as a violation of the Constitution and excluded the crime of rebellion, which is a violation of the criminal law. If you say this, the issue can be whether this can be seen as a change, and if the National Assembly is actually preparing for the second hearing, It becomes an issue because they say they will withdraw the criminal law claims, but if the Constitutional Court is a little concerned about the controversy over this part, if the National Assembly claims that it excludes the criminal law of this rebellion, the facts have to be judged anyway.

In the end, whether it is a violation of the Constitution or criminal law, the facts must be clearly specified before deciding whether to dismiss them. In the end, even if the criminal law is withdrawn, the facts of the rebellion must be clarified in the end for the violation of the Constitution, and witnesses must be accepted. As a result, the Constitutional Court's briefing said that there are no clear regulations regarding the legal inclusion, and the court should decide on this, so I don't know how to judge it. The ruling party and the opposition party are making various claims, and we can't know exactly how the withdrawal was arranged in writing, but if the facts are the same on the legal part but the legal claims are different, as I said, even if the crime of rebellion is excluded from the legal principle, the facts for judgment are the same. If the request for witnesses and such things are carried out in the same manner, the Constitutional Court has no choice but to worry about this because it can reduce the concern about the factual facts that the ruling party is concerned about. As lawyer Kim said, if there is a possibility that there may be a very legal problem with the elimination of the rebellion itself, even if the Constitutional Court said it would withdraw, if it is stated in the prosecution resolution, the process of judging the matters stated in the prosecution resolution may be reviewed again. [Kim Kwang-sam] Additionally, the Constitutional Court is a political institution.

When judging, if the crime of rebellion is admitted or not, or admitted, life imprisonment is sentenced. It is not an institution that does that. If the constitutional requirements of the rebellion are met, this is a crime under the criminal law, so of course, it is a violation of the Constitution and the law, so it is better to be judged on this if you have already put it in during the impeachment. But if you say you're going to take it out in the middle, why are you going to take it out? The reason is not to take it out to get there quickly. But it's wrong. That's why, as lawyer Kim said earlier, the impeachment charge is kind of like an indictment. If the basic facts are the same in the indictment, the change of the indictment is permitted within that range. However, there are no regulations in the Constitutional Court, and this is a matter to be judged on its own. But I shouldn't have said that I would withdraw this. I saw earlier that during the interview at the National Assembly's prosecution, they said that they wouldn't change any of the contents during the press conference. If you think so, why would you cause this disturbance by withdrawing the crime of rebellion? You just have to go to the impeachment trial.

[Anchor]
However, if you withdraw a part that is a little inconsistent in the facts of the contents. Or, as you said, do you think the biggest factor will be omitted and affect the judgment of the Constitutional Court?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
It can drive you crazy. Because if you violate the Constitution and the law and it violates the Constitution and the law, you can impeach it if it's a serious reason even if it's not a criminal offense. However, if it violates the Constitution and the law, and it cannot be viewed as a serious reason, it will be dismissed. However, if you decide that there is room for rebellion in addition to that, this must be cited. So it's not that important.I'm telling you that there are violations of the constitution and laws of Ralji, it's hard to see it like this.

[Kim Sung-soo]
In addition, the Supreme Court argued that the judiciary should refrain from examining this if it is not such a critical part of civil war or foreign exchange because it is a highly political judgment about the president's political actions in the past. Therefore, if the judgment of this civil war or foreign exchange itself is excluded at all, the judgment of the president's high-level political behavior and the judiciary's judgment on this can be an issue. Even if we do not clearly judge whether the crime of civil war is established under the criminal law by withdrawing it, we will have to judge the facts about the fact that it eventually reached the degree of civil war. Even if we withdraw it in the end, if it is not beneficial, I think the National Assembly should consider withdrawing it itself.

[Anchor]
Since the National Assembly announced that it would remove the crime of rebellion under the criminal law from the impeachment trial, there has been a series of debates in the political world. Let's listen to the related remarks. Many metaphors are being talked about. However, as legal issues continue, there is nothing clearly related to it, so there seems to be a frustrating part.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
From the people's point of view, it's a bit difficult to understand legally. So even if the crime of rebellion entered the reason for the impeachment, would it be a crime of rebellion or not? The agency that decides this is not a constitutional court agency, and isn't the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit investigating this while executing an arrest warrant? That's why the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can't indict you, so you'll send it to the prosecution and be prosecuted. So the constitutional trial and impeachment are not suspended again until a conviction is made. I can stop it. You can stop it, but the Constitutional Court won't accept it. However, even if we do as Rep. Park Beom-gye said, in fact, we don't need to do this.


You don't have to get rid of it. At least at this point, it can be a crime of rebellion because it does not meet the constituent requirements, so there is no need to judge it like that under the criminal law or the criminal law trial. So just because you withdraw this, you don't have to make such a fuss. The Democratic Party of Korea wants to go now. However, because of this conflict, the constitutional trial can go late, and in some cases, the Constitutional Court can be misunderstood, causing various problems.

[Anchor]
Prior to that, the National Assembly's impeachment trial said as if the Constitutional Court had recommended it, but the Constitutional Court said it had never recommended it. How did you see this?

[Kim Sung-soo]
This part was also an issue during the second preparatory period, and this is what was said in the statement. I understand that what the National Assembly said was that it would withdraw from the civil war in the Constitution, and that was what the court recommended to the National Assembly, and when you look at the first hearing preparation period, Judge Lee Jeong-sik said this at the time. There are some crimes of rebellion or violations of martial law under the criminal law, and do you mean that you will reorganize your inclusion as a violation of the Constitution?

They ask me like this. Therefore, whether the interpretation of this was recommended by the Constitutional Court to clear up this part, there could be a dispute over this.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
But the reason for the truth battle is that when we have a trial, the court calls the side and tells us what it would be like to organize this. Then we summarize that the judge has this idea. It's because they told us to clean up, but if we don't clean up, it could be disadvantageous to us.
So by your recommendation, by the purpose of your recommendation, this word cannot actually be made up. That's how I see it. Because it's the same with general legal practice. The second reason why I think it's reliable is that if you say this according to the purpose of your recommendation, the constitutional judge has never recommended it.

Then we never recommended it, so you can judge independently, it's right to say this. But you don't say anything? So this is how you do it? I don't know if it'll be misunderstood or if it'll be true, but I'm telling you that there's definitely a possibility of controversy.

[Anchor]
In this regard, the Constitutional Court and the president's position came out and looked at it. President Yoon's arrest warrant execution again, let's look at this issue a little more. Earlier, we told you about the change in status of the security service after becoming a security service, but after this incident, there is another saying that the presidential security service should be removed.

[Kim Sung-soo]
If you want to get rid of the presidential security, it is possible to revise this part because the government organization law or the presidential security law is now based on these laws. However, in order to pass the current law, there are parts such as the consent of the majority in the National Assembly, right? The resolution itself can be made because only the number of opposition parties can vote by a majority. In order for the current law to be declared and implemented in the end, the president can exercise his right to request reconsideration if he has any objection to it, and if he exercises his right to request reconsideration, he or she needs more than two-thirds of consent. Therefore, there are situations in which the special prosecution law and such things have not yet been implemented, so if the acting president will exercise his right to request reconsideration when he submits an amendment on this part, we can tell you that we need to see in many ways whether what is being talked about in the National Assembly can be realized right away.

[Anchor]
As security is getting so tight around the presidential residence, the police are also mentioning the possibility that police commandos and criminal mobile units will be deployed if they are executed this time. How do you see the possibility of success?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think we have to wait and see because they're in advance discussions, but it's impossible to execute an arrest warrant with the last manpower, that's what I see. As I said earlier, aren't you saying that you have installed four car walls by car? Then how are you going to break through this? Then last time, I pierced the front and the official residence well. What are you going to do when you're stuck over there? Then, as I said earlier, if the police have a very strong will to arrest the president, in the end, they have to take various tools, special tools, or specially trained police and have a large number of people.

One of the biggest concerns we have as a people is that we don't have much trouble getting through the facts there after all. If a person with special police training enters. The possibility of any mishap happening right now at the meeting of man-to-man and person-to-person is the most problematic issue in the execution of arrests. But if the police really have a strong will to execute the arrest this time, in a way, they will start with the arrest of the people who are guarding them. That way, you have to start arresting them, and they don't follow the instructions from below. So in that regard, the police themselves are very professional.

So I'll make a plan for those things as a whole and then if I think there's a chance of success, I'll go in then. We talked about the secret behind the investigation earlier. I personally remember that one of the things the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit did very wrong was that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit had never issued an arrest warrant and executed it. I may remember it wrong. But if you bring an arrest execution warrant, you say that the president would respond smoothly. That's not it. I had to set up plans A, B, and C, but there was nothing like that. Then, the police themselves are much less experienced than the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and have a lot of manpower. So, if you go into execution, if you don't succeed, not only the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit but also the police themselves will be severely hurt. So I think we have to wait and see about that.

[Anchor]
During the second round of arrest execution, there was a saying that if the security service blocked him, he would arrest him as a red-handed criminal. Is this legally possible?

[Kim Sung-soo]
According to the Criminal Procedure Act, there is an arrest regulation as a current offender, and there is a regulation that anyone can be arrested if there is an illegal act related to that. Now, the police say that this is a legitimate execution, so preventing legitimate execution itself can be illegal, and they are saying that they will arrest the current criminal. However, unlike the current Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the security service also says that their actions are legitimate, so it is inevitable for the police to consider whether arresting the current criminal is possible or not. And as lawyer Kim said, in order to avoid such a physical dispute as much as possible, the presidential security service will eventually be under the command and supervision of the security chief in accordance with Article 3 of the Security Act.

In that case, I think we will even review this part because we can review the part that can exclude physical conflict in this part through some consultation with the security chief or the arrest of the security chief. However, I think I can tell you that we have no choice but to consider this part in various ways because it can be another matter of whether arrest will be possible in reality.

[Anchor]
In addition, controversy is brewing on the 3rd as it is known that ordinary soldiers from the Army's radiation force were mobilized during the execution of the first arrest warrant. Let's listen to the testimony. Right now, the 55th Guard has been sent in, but the security department says no.As you have seen, there are also related videos that the former commander of the defense command has been confirmed to have 55 guards. They are saying this, but if this is confirmed, the relevant evidence is clearly revealed, what will happen?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
Isn't that what the president's security agency says? Since this is a harm to the president, we have to protect him under the Security Service Act. Then, if you presuppose the Security Service Act, of course, you can think of the 55th Guard Corps as the 33rd Military Police Battalion, which is the same as the military police. That's why I'm doing this, saying I can call him and protect him. So if there's a force outside that is trying to do something harm to the president's body in a normal case under the Security Service Act, then this wouldn't be a problem. However, the purpose of security under the Security Service Act is to eliminate and prevent external harm, and there is a law on the security of the president. In order to perform this, the security chief exists. However, the president is saying that the arrest warrant itself is illegal, but the arrest warrant has been issued for now. Then it's legally promoted. In order to overturn this, it is supposed to be legal now, although it should be proved illegal later through the court, and the result is now legal. Then, is it the subject of security to prevent a legal arrest warrant issued by the court? That's not the case. An arrest warrant is not a harm to the president, it's law enforcement. Therefore, there is a provision that the Security Service should not mobilize such military forces, and such things should not be abused by authority under the Security Service Act. It may be an abuse of authority or an abuse of authority under the criminal law. It can interfere with the execution of special public affairs, and there is a lot of room for various laws to be applied. So first of all, it's not right to mobilize a battalion of military police, whether it's a guard or not.

[Anchor]
It's legal, it's illegal. There are different opinions on both sides on each issue, so how about acting President Choi Sang-mok? The Democratic Party of Korea defined it as an act of rebellion after seeing that Acting President Choi Sang-mok did not instruct the Security Service to cooperate with the execution of the warrant. He said he would file a complaint against him on charges of dereliction of duty. What do you think of it legally? charges of dereliction of duty


[Kim Sung-soo]
Under the criminal law, job abandonment may be established if you do not do it even though you are obligated to perform a certain job. Therefore, if there is a complaint or something like that for dereliction of duty, it will be necessary to see if there is a duty obligation, and in the case of acting authority Choi Sang-mok, there is a request for cooperation in the security service, so if so, you should see if you are obligated to make a request. I'm sure there will be authority. This is because if you look at the Government Organization Act and the Presidential Security Act, the director can supervise the security service under the Presidential Security Act, and if you look at the Government Organization Act, the president can supervise the head of the central administrative agency, so you can supervise the head of the security service. Therefore, it can be seen that the authority belongs to the acting president, Choi Sang-mok. If so, it can be an issue whether it is an obligation to order this and if it is considered an obligation, it can be possible to establish a crime of dereliction, but if it is not, it will not be a crime, so there may be legal disputes in the end, and the key to that part will eventually be whether it can be viewed as an obligation.

[Anchor]
I'll tell you something that just came in. The police special team said it asked Park Jong-joon, the head of the security department, to attend the third round. First of all, it will be Friday, January 10th, to Director Park Jong-joon, who refused to comply with the second request for attendance. It is reported that they sent out an attendance request to attend by 10 a.m. on January 10th.

[Anchor]
I didn't comply with the second round today, and if it doesn't come out until the third round, can I go to an arrest warrant?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
From what I see now, the special police force is building a justification for the arrest of Chief of Security Park Jong-joon. Look at it like this. First of all, we don't attend the third round. Then, the most important thing about the current security is that the most senior is the security chief. So it's actually less burdensome to take an arrest warrant for the security chief. It is a legitimate procedure to arrest with an arrest warrant issued by a judge rather than arresting as a red-handed offender, and in some cases, the police are the main body of the arrest warrant execution by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and they are going with the police to discuss the investigation. However, if you get an arrest warrant for Director Park Jong-joon, you will have more legal justification to go with him.

Then, in fact, it could be a very important case in which the police can intervene both in the cause and in the legal aspect. In some cases, an arrest warrant was issued for Director of Security Park Jong-joon. So, if you have an arrest warrant for Park Jong-joon, the chief of security, and two arrest warrants for the president, or if you take an arrest warrant with you, not with Park Jong-joon, but with the general manager, the deputy chief of security, and such people, you have a justification to execute the arrest warrant. So, I don't know if that's the intention, because if you suppress it there to execute an arrest warrant, it can be easier to execute an arrest warrant against the president.If you go that way, I think there is room for the police to see that they are taking a step closer to executing arrest warrants against the president in that way.


[Anchor]
Let's talk a little more about the accusation against acting authority Choi Sang-mok. There were voices within the Democratic Party of Korea calling for the impeachment of Acting President Choi Sang-mok, but there seemed to have lowered the level to a certain extent. What kind of intent do you think this is?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, if you look at Article 65 of the Constitution, the part about impeachment is about impeachment. And if there is a charge of violating the law, the National Assembly can impeach it through a prosecution resolution, and Prime Minister Han Deok-soo has carried out impeachment proceedings based on a majority, right? If so, there will be a part where the impeachment process can be carried out against Acting President Choi Sang-mok, but I think the opposition party has reviewed that part because it is inevitably burdensome to continue impeaching in consideration of political rather than legal aspects. And once you file a criminal complaint, I think it has been comprehensively reviewed because there are legal and political aspects.

[Anchor]
Looking at the investigation process so far, some point out that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit revealed not only incompetence but also lack of will, and lawyer Kim pointed out that earlier. Where do you think it became a problem? Is it a problem from being transferred to this case, what do you think?

[Kim Kwang-sam]
First of all, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have at least this level of investigation and the ability and expertise to investigate the president of a country. First of all, I requested a warrant 5 times since the establishment of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but a warrant has never been issued. Since there is no experience of investigation in the warrant, there is no sense of whether this case will be issued or not when the warrant is requested. As a result, I've never been issued, and I've never been prosecuted and convicted. Then, in fact, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is not an institution that practices investigation. Nevertheless, in my view, you should have been familiar with the Constitution and laws, especially the Public Prosecutor's Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, but without being familiar with them, didn't you just send the case to the police and the prosecution twice, not once? I got a toothbrush, but it was overloaded. It means they're not capable enough to do it, they don't have any expertise. So after I got it, I was lost. You can see it like this. It's the same thing that I got for an arrest warrant. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit itself did not investigate and obtain an arrest warrant. They asked for an arrest warrant with the data they had transferred, and they didn't get it by proving it with their own ability. So, it's wrong from the beginning. You can see it like this. And the arrest warrant and the investigation are the same. In fact, we cannot investigate the crime of rebellion against the president.

However, since there is a crime of abuse of authority, it means that we will investigate the crime of rebellion by linking it. But let's say you can investigate. And then they don't have the power to prosecute this. Then, shouldn't you send it to the prosecution? I'm transferring them. The prosecution can't charge you with rebellion. No, you can't be prosecuted for abuse of authority. Because you can't prosecute me for treason. So it became a completely deformed structure. So even if I received the transfer, I didn't have the ability to digest it, and I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has been criticized a lot so far in this situation, so I said I would try to revive it with this, but as a result, I couldn't keep up with my capabilities. That's why the situation is intertwined like a thread. You can see it like this.

[Anchor]
Then, there are many observations that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will eventually go to the special prosecutor's office, and there are many comments to the effect that it will go to the special prosecutor's office. Don't you have to pass the Bilateral Special Prosecution Act at the plenary session of the National Assembly tomorrow to operate the special prosecutor's office? How can we observe this?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of the twin special prosecution law, the right to request reconsideration must be exercised, and two-thirds of the votes must be approved. However, when the number of seats in the opposition party is checked, it may be less than two-thirds, so the issue can be how many votes there are in the ruling party. If it does not pass tomorrow, the National Assembly will propose this part once again and proceed with the process. Then, even then, there is a part where it is necessary to see whether the bill, which has not been passed from the current right to demand reconsideration, will go out or whether a slightly changed bill will go out. And even if the special prosecution is actually carried out under the Special Prosecutor Act, it can take a lot of time for the composition of the special prosecution and things like this, so I think there are many concerns about whether it is right to go through the process of moving the cases once again in the existing investigative agencies.

[Anchor]
Lastly, I'd like to hear from the lawyer.

[Kim Kwang-sam]
First of all, the independent counsel may or may not pass. Isn't there a high possibility that it won't be re-decided? I think it's been re-decided. It takes a month. Then are you going to leave the airlift for a month? That's not true. So if you made a mistake and make a mistake, you have to admit it right away. So personally, I failed in the first round. Then, instead of requesting the second arrest warrant themselves, they return the transfer from the prosecution. It is right for the police to investigate to return it to the police and ensure that there is no controversy in this case itself. The president is also saying that the police should investigate. Then, it's a legitimate authority and the police investigate according to principle without controversy, and whether they get an arrest warrant or an arrest warrant. However, if the independent counsel is formed, for example, it will be transferred to the independent counsel at that time, which is not correct.

In my opinion, the independent counsel law will be proposed and passed, and if acting Choi Sang-mok requests reconsideration, it will go again and again. Therefore, if you try to make a judgment, you have to make a judgment quickly, but in my view, requesting a second arrest warrant can be a mistake in judgment in some cases. I filed a second arrest warrant. Let's say we succeeded. Let's get the president's whereabouts and investigate. From that process, you'll be constantly attacked as an illegal investigation. So, we have to finally solve this by principle and principle, but I don't know if there are various time aspects or the legitimacy of the investigation will be exposed, and whether the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has the ability to secure and investigate the president's whereabouts. Looking at what we've been doing so far, we also have doubts about that.

[Anchor]
First of all, you have to follow the principle. So far, I've been with lawyer Kim Kwang-sam and lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Thank you.