[Scene video +] "False instigation, get up... "If you request a preliminary warrant, you will respond to the trial."

[Yoon Gap-geun / Yoon Suk Yeol's lawyer]
Hello. The place has been changed due to the weather, so it's been delayed a little. Please understand. First, I will convey the president's words and intentions, and since last night, there has been a case of spreading absurd ghost stories, and many people have asked me questions, so I will answer them first. Yesterday, the National Assembly asked where the president had fled and spread malicious rumors that he had been tipped off. The lawmakers are doing something that even ordinary people can't do. It's really unfortunate and deplorable.

I definitely came out after seeing the president at his residence last night. This is a false propaganda that really can't be happening. In addition, it is a shame that this does not happen by mistake, but is maliciously created for a specific purpose, and it can happen in Korea, a liberal democratic country, in the 21st century. I hope all of you here take the center stage and make a good judgment and write an article.

An arrest warrant has been issued, so you will have a lot of questions about it, and many people are asking about the constitutional trial, so I will tell you about that. First of all, in a big way, the president has a responsibility to defend the law. But tolerating or responding to illegal investigations or judicial proceedings can be a very bad precedent and a bad history. I think this could lead to the collapse of the rule of law and it's kind of like a big dam being broken down by a small hole.

In that sense, we have responded to the investigation of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the execution of arrest warrants so far. In other words, there is no change in the position that we cannot respond to investigations conducted based on invalid arrest warrants. But as you may have seen in the field, there is so much conflict, confusion, and division now. Many people, our police officials, security officials, and other government officials who are suffering from this extreme cold are having a hard time. They say that there should no longer be such division and conflict, and that our good people and civil servants should no longer suffer.

So prosecute first when it comes to execution of arrest warrants or investigations. Or ask for a pre-warrant. Then I'm in a position to accept the court trial. This is the basic position related to the arrest warrant. And regarding the Constitutional Court, many people have asked about the withdrawal of the rebellion and the president's attendance, so if you answer, your intention to attend the Constitutional Court trial remains unchanged.

However, as you may have seen, there is a lot of confusion in the process of the constitutional trial. The issue of the law of evidence, which can be called the rules of the game, the withdrawal of the rebellion, the application of Article 42 of the Constitution, and the designation of the date, are now being confused and controversial. So these parts have been overhauled to some extent, so you can go when the conditions for the president to go and speak are established.

First of all, it's hard to tell you about that period by designating a date, but in the situation you see, these confusing and controversial situations need to be sorted out. Let me just tell you that the basic position is like this regarding the constitutional trial. The rest is based on what you're curious about, so we'll answer the questions we don't know. Ask me a question and I'll let you know. I'm not in that position. I have already distributed the press release, but the withdrawal of the rebellion is so important in the impeachment resolution that the impeachment should be invalid and dismissed. Nevertheless, if the trial proceeds normally, it is a matter to be judged again then, not a precondition.

In simple terms, it can only be called a pun and a sophistry, which is a violation of the Constitution and laws if you look at the reasons for impeachment. Then, when the impeachment decision was made, what was supposed to be a rebellion was decided to be a constitutional rebellion. To withdraw it again and constitute a violation of the Constitution is a part of the Constitution about requirements and procedures. Violation of the Constitution should be discussed in terms of its requirements and procedures, and the fact that it absorbs a part related to a rebellion as a violation of the Constitution and discusses it as an arrest requirement can only be seen as a trick to prevent the prosecution of impeachment through the hearing of the rebellion or the disclosure of weaknesses and the extension of the deadline.

As I said in yesterday's press release, we analyzed that 80% of the crimes of insurrection are accounted for in the impeachment resolution. You'll know better whether it should continue with the remaining 20 percent after a decision or an event has been removed 80 percent, and whether the event is an event that serves that purpose. For example, if you go to a restaurant and order short rib soup but it doesn't have short rib soup, is it short rib soup? Isn't it short rib soup? Then do I have to pay for it or not? That's very common sense.

[Interview]
To explain, if you look at the reasons for the prosecution of the prosecution resolution, the president's declaration of martial law against it is a declaration of martial law that violates the Constitution and laws. And paragraph 1 of the grounds for prosecution that the act of declaring martial law constitutes a crime of rebellion because of national disorder makes it clear that both are crimes of rebellion. As you said, it is clear that the act of declaring martial law itself is a violation of the constitutional law and is unconstitutional in violation of the procedural and requirements of the constitutional law, and then a crime of rebellion. However, I'm talking about an act that is reversed again this time. Is this the right thing to say?