■ Host: anchor Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Starring: Cha Jin-ah, professor of law at Korea University, lawyer So Soo-ho
* 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]
There is a growing possibility of physical conflict between the Joint Investigation Headquarters trying to enter the official residence and the Presidential Security Service to prevent it ahead of the second execution of the warrant after the court reissued the arrest warrant for President Yoon. Ahead of the execution of the second arrest warrant, let's point out the legal issues and concerns raised. Cha Jin-ah, a professor at Korea University's Graduate School of Law, and Sohn So-ho, a lawyer, are with us. Please come in. I'd like to point out what President Yoon's lawyers said a little while ago. A little while ago, lawyer Yoon Gap-geun said he has no change in his position to refuse to comply with the arrest warrant, saying that he would go out if he requested an indictment or a preliminary arrest warrant before executing the arrest warrant. How did you hear this part?
[Chajinah]
Therefore, it seems that from the perspective of President Yoon's lawyers, the warrant issued by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is also invalid because the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the right to investigate. Therefore, it seems that they cannot respond to the investigation of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but they will respond to such a preliminary arrest warrant because it is legal.
[Anchor]
And the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit filed an arrest warrant with the Western District Court and it was issued by the Western District Court. So I'm continuing to take issue with this part as well. Why the Western District Court, not the Central District Court. President Yoon's side is saying, "Isn't it in jurisdiction?" Today, he even said that if he asks for an arrest warrant with the Seoul Central District Court, he will comply with the procedure. What did you think about this part?
[Sonho]
The president is raising a number of procedural issues, but there is some reason. In particular, the jurisdiction pointed out by the host a while ago is also worth listening to. However, there is an aspect in which both sides' arguments are correct. Because there's no rule that goes down. In the end, the court must make a judgment to determine whether it is legal or illegal to make a claim to the Western District Court. In order to be judged by the court, an arrest warrant is executed, arrested, and an arrest warrant is requested for judgment before the result is made, or if an arrest warrant is requested before the result is released, it is judged at the arrest warrant stage.
However, in order to receive such a judgment, an arrest must be made first. But now, I can't be judged because I'm resisting so that I don't get to that stage. But it was my first time in this situation, and I challenged the issuance of the warrant, and I expected the court to not answer that.Ma also answered that by the court. It means that there is no problem if you look at these parts and the contents. If so, the president's argument seems to have some truth, but no state agency has ruled that the arrest warrant, issued at least twice by the court, is illegal, illegal, invalid or against the Constitution.
If so, at this stage, the president seems to have a priority to accept court warrants. However, what is issued now is an arrest warrant. So you're not bound for this, you're not prosecuted, you're not convicted, you're not fired. I'm simply calling in to investigate because I didn't respond to the request for attendance. I think we should consider that stage a little.
[Anchor]
Then, if we listen to President Yoon's position, should we understand that the police, not the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, should take charge of this case?
[Chajinah]
It seems to be such an argument. So if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit promptly transfers it to the police and the police summon it, they will respond, right? And if you request a preliminary arrest warrant, don't you have a chance to explain yourself before you are arrested? If you give yourself a chance to explain yourself, you will comply with the warrant if it is issued, but it is difficult to comply with the arrest warrant because it was issued unilaterally by the investigative agency.
[Anchor]
There is also a new story that lawyer Yoon Gap-geun said, and it is said that he made this statement that it is an institutional principle to conduct a rebellion investigation after the impeachment trial. So, the impeachment trial is being conducted in the Constitutional Court and the civil war investigation is being conducted in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Is there any systematic order like this?
[Chajinah]
It is not systematically stipulated, but Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Act stipulates that if the impeachment trial proceeds for the same reason and the criminal trial proceeds at the same time, the impeachment trial process can be suspended while the criminal trial process proceeds.It's the discretion of the Constitutional Court. And because of the severity of the matter, the long-term administration of the acting system makes the state even more chaotic, so the Constitutional Court does not seem to have accepted the request. So, there is no seniority, but I think it is an expression of this position that President Yoon's lawyers and agents say that they will not be investigated as an incumbent president.
[Anchor]
So, at around 7 p.m. last night, the arrest and search warrants for President Yoon were reissued, and at this point, President Yoon's lawyers expressed this position, so I have no intention of responding again, right?
[Sonho]
That's right. In the meantime, many legal professionals and the public have thought that if at least some stage passes, they will not respond to the investigation or cooperate with the process. The same goes for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. However, looking at them talking like that even at the stage, it seems to be solidifying the idea that the warrant itself is illegal. Or it seems that they have established a thorough policy to make that argument. Therefore, it does not seem very likely that we will continue to voluntarily and arbitrarily cooperate with the process in the future.
[Anchor]
A second arrest warrant was also issued by the Western District Court. The judge is known as another judge, but it is illegal for this warrant. And President Yoon claims that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the right to investigate, but the second warrant was issued and the investigation right was recognized. Can I look at it like this? What do you think?
[Chajinah]
It's hard to say that it was ultimately recognized because it was a lower court.Ma has the right to investigate civil war or not.Ma has been issued warrants for other accomplices as a related crime of abuse of authority, but the speciality is that President Yoon's position is that he can only investigate crimes of rebellion and foreign exchange against the incumbent president, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has no right to investigate the very crime.
That makes sense.Ma said, "At least twice in the court, it is a violation of the president's duty to protect the constitution to protest his position, such as responding to the execution of the warrant, responding to the summons request, and filing an objection through due process.
[Anchor]
First of all, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is putting all of its life and death into the execution of the second warrant. Based on President Yoon's position, is there a possibility that the case will be transferred from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to the police? What do you think?
[Sonho]
Legally, there is a possibility of a transfer. According to the Corruption Investigations Unit Act, this is also a part that can be judged at the discretion of the Corruption Investigations Unit, and there is a provision that the case can be transferred to another investigative agency. So it's possible. However, given the position shown by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit so far, we have withdrawn it.There was also a kind of happening where Ma entrusted the police to execute the warrant and then reversed it again. Given this, there seems to be no willingness to transfer. In other words, an arrest warrant was executed and eventually interrogated, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will proceed with the interrogation of the suspect, the president. And after that, it seems that they are willing to proceed with the follow-up procedure as soon as they have consulted with the prosecution.
However, various controversies and confusion were created in the first place with a good intention of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but they were made without proper preparation, and there is inevitable confusion as unexpected things suddenly break out like this. Of course, aside from the inherent problems, I think it's right to go to a certain extent to solve these problems in the current situation. So, from the perspective of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the survival of the organization is important, and their performance is also important.More important than that is how to legally end the national turmoil early and also how to respond to the president's objections and refutations. If so, I think it would be a faster way to follow the procedure as the president wants after transferring it again according to the procedure.
[Anchor]
Professor, what do you think? So, the execution of arrest warrants is actually a situation that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit should do with the help of the police, but the investigation itself should be re-transferred to the police. What do you think about this position?
[Chajinah]
That's what I think, too. The best thing is for President Yoon to attend voluntarily by coordinating the venue and schedule between the lawyers and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit even now.Ma seems unlikely at the moment, so if so, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will transfer to the police and respond if the police summon him, so I think that investigating and then requesting an arrest warrant is a way to minimize this confusion for now.
[Anchor]
And just a moment ago, President Yoon's lawyers also expressed their position on the rumor of the president's escape. While the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police discussed the timing and method of execution of the second arrest warrant, various suspicions were raised about President Yoon's future. Let's hear the voice of Senior Superintendent of Public Offenses Oh Dong-woon who attended the National Assembly yesterday.
[Anchor]
Some said that President Yoon fled to a third place, and Oh Dong-woon, the head of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, heard about it and said, "I will consider it comprehensively," and said, "Is there a possibility?" Today, President Yoon's lawyers saw the president at his residence last night.
[Sonho]
That's right. We don't know where the president is now. But I'm currently in the process of being fired, and I don't know if I'll be fired or not.Ma, and the suspect under investigation. However, even so, he is the incumbent president. Then, would the president have evacuated or fled somewhere in the current situation? I don't think so. Also, I hope that's not the case. If this is true, I think it's an event that really has a big impact on national prestige.
And on the contrary, from a different angle, it is also necessary to think about why the opposition party is raising the issue in this area. First of all, it's possible that the first one actually avoided somewhere. You can't rule it out. And the second, even if it is not and is currently in the residence, do not escape anywhere at the time of the execution of the second warrant. It may be a warning that you shouldn't escape. And there are a lot of security personnel and other people protecting the president at the presidential residence.
Then there are not only high-ranking government officials who are very strongly politically united or are a little bit collusive at other levels, but also general careers. However, in this case, if the president is not here or the president has already fled somewhere, there may be various confusion in complying with the orders of the superiors. Or you can have a lot of thoughts. I also think it's a comprehensive preliminary work aimed at this.
[Anchor]
So, on the president's part, as you just heard, malicious and false propaganda is taking place. in connection with this matter And if the president really fled to not comply with the execution of this arrest warrant, if he's somewhere else. Is there no legal problem? What do you think?
[Chajinah]
There is a possibility that it is theoretically possible, but would it have been realistically so, I think lawyer Sohn and I are similar. It shouldn't be, and if it's true, this is the very reason for an arrest warrant, isn't there a fear of running away? So if that's true, I think it's not an arrest warrant right away, but an arrest warrant.
[Sonho]
And if you're asking for this purpose, isn't it another crime for the host to escape or escape, there is a crime of escape under our law. However, this crime of escape is a crime that occurs when such a person flees after being arrested or detained according to the law. Therefore, as the professor said, it is likely to go to the request for an arrest warrant and examination in the future, but moving somewhere separately now may be a constitutional problem, but it is difficult to see it as an additional crime under the criminal law.
[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is concentrating on the second execution, and President Yoon is in a position that he can never respond to it. In this situation, if the second execution attempt is made, there will be another strong conflict, right?
[Sonho]
That's what I'm very worried about. First of all, we never thought that the president would not comply with legal procedures until the end. And even if there are various interpretations, controversies, and dislikes of the president, I think it's hard to believe that he treats the execution of warrants issued by the court this rough and strong, even if there is a separate political strategy. Of course, politically, supporting someone or not supporting anyone is a separate matter.
However, no matter who is in this situation now, it is very worrisome to prevent the execution of the warrant now, no matter which party the president is in this situation now. As a result, it is confirmed that several levels of cordon have been set as shown on the screen and that facilities, facilities, and manpower have been strengthened even more than at the time of the first warrant execution. If so, there is a need to execute the warrant, and there is a legal basis, and many people want it.We cannot rule out the possibility of a real conflict and a tragedy if Ma deals with it without preparation.
I don't want that to happen, but first, I don't want it to happen. But you can't do that. Then, second, the president can respond to the arrest. But it's hard to expect that possibility. If so, I think that lowering the possibility of a collision is a realistic way to make sure that preparation and strong, and to minimize and execute the collision quickly and quickly. However, as I mentioned just a moment ago, this quick execution does not mean to resist conflicts and maximize various physical exercises for security personnel, but to do it quickly enough to resist.
And the police are very capable and very experienced in these tasks. That's why it's a matter of will, and it's not that difficult to make a decision with a certain amount of justification accumulated, but it's very politically complex. It seems that consideration in that respect should follow.
[Anchor]
As you can see on the screen, we could have seen such a scene of installing barbed wire fences, but it is illegal for the president to put a police mobile team in a first-class confidential area. He expressed his position on why the police task force, which is in charge of security affairs, is doing investigation work. Is this illegal?
[Chajinah]
Yes, strictly speaking, the argument also has a point. This is because police are divided into administrative police and judicial police according to their duties. The judicial police are the police in charge of these investigations. And when executing a warrant, a prosecutor directs it and a judicial police official executes it, and eventually, you can get help from the police, but you have to get help from the judicial police. However, what the task force does is not a judicial police, but an administrative police because it is a police officer who maintains various orders in the field. If you use these administrative police to execute a warrant, it may be illegal in itself. I think that's why I'm making that point.
[Anchor]
And yesterday, the police asked Park Jong-joon, the head of the presidential bodyguard, to appear by 10 a.m. the day after tomorrow. I asked for the third attendance like this. If Director Park continues to refuse, he is reportedly considering an arrest warrant, so how do you expect this part to develop in the future?
[Sonho]
There are quite a few cases where ordinary lawyers like us take a bit of time to work or try to create more variables. Whether it's civil or detective, it's the same. However, it is a little unfamiliar to see this in a case involving the president. I also feel that this should not be the case, but at least in principle, such a request to give time cannot be considered unfair because a lawyer has not been appointed. And there is no legal problem with appointing a lawyer to fully prepare for the investigation and then saying that they will respond. It makes sense.
However, looking at the current situation, I think it's a little hard to accept that expression as it is. In other words, if you look at the context, I will not respond until the end. I will not go out voluntarily even if I am dragged out. I think it would be right to interpret the message as a strong expression of such a message, that I will be with the president. That's why I've asked the security chief to appear several times, and if he doesn't respond to that request, I'll get an arrest warrant. If I'm a Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or a police officer, I think I'll first execute an arrest warrant for the security chief.
If that's the case, in the case of the president, he's using defense logic for various legal reasons, such as investigative power and jurisdiction.The situation is completely different for public officials such as Ma's security chief.
can be a situation where there is no legal point to blame. In such a situation, if you get an arrest warrant for the security chief, etc., and take it with you to execute it, will you not respond and close the door like now? Or will the scrum be drawn up and prevented by several personnel. Then, unlike the case of the president, legal judgment and police judgment on the spot can be much easier.
[Anchor]
So, what do you think about the possibility of a psychological change in the case of the police's request for the summons of the security personnel, including the chief of security?
[Chajinah]
Maybe you can't think that there's any psychological change in itself, but you're probably preparing for all those things. So, unless they are physically arrested or arrested, they seem to be determined to do their security work properly until the end.
[Anchor]
In addition, I'm curious about something a little bit earlier, the police sent an official letter to Park Jong-joon, the head of the security service, asking him to attend by 10 a.m. the day after tomorrow. If I don't attend until then, can I be arrested as a red-handed criminal after the attendance deadline after Friday morning? What do you think?
[Sonho]
I think the arrest of the current criminal was already possible at the time of the first warrant execution. And even now, we're not trying to execute a warrant.Ma is in a situation where various kinds of defensive actions continue. If so, at least in a broad sense, I think the current criminal will still be the case. In addition, if you commit such an act as the first when you execute a warrant for the second time, you will be recognized as a red offender again. But now, rather than arresting him as a current offender, I think it would be possible to confuse the president's side to get an arrest warrant for Chief Park Jong-joon and try to execute such a warrant first.
[Anchor]
If the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police break through the resistance of the security service and arrest President Yoon, will the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit be able to continue the investigation properly? There are also fundamental concerns about this, but if an arrest warrant is requested for President Yoon within 48 hours, the time given to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is only 12 days. What's wrong with this?
[Chajinah]
It's not fixed yet. The prosecutor's arrest period can be extended 10 days or 10 days, so it is 20 days. However, since the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the right to prosecute the president, it must investigate and then hand over the case to the prosecution for prosecution anyway. However, in the end, the prosecution has to write an indictment to prosecute, but for that to happen, the case needs to be reviewed again. Isn't that going to take time?
However, a total of 20 days of imprisonment is applied to both the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the prosecution. So, there is no regulation on how to use this, but if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit arrests Moon Sang-ho and passes him to the prosecution for prosecution, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit uses up this arrest period and passes it to the prosecution for an imminent arrest period, it is difficult to maintain the prosecution if the prosecution mechanically indicts him without reviewing it. So, on the 10th and 10th, it is said that the agreement was made only for this case. But this was an unusual agreement, and we have to discuss what to do about the president again, so this is also evident in this situation how crude the Corruption Investigations Unit Act was.
[Sonho]
Actually, I agree with the part that the professor pointed out now. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the prosecution have consulted. If this consultation itself is clearly defined in the law, there is no need for a consultation. But the controversy that came out at first is that the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is also a prosecutor. And the prosecutor in the prosecution is also a prosecutor. Therefore, the arrest period is 10 days at the prosecution stage, and it can be extended once within 10 days. It's a maximum of 20 days. So, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can arrest you for 10 days plus 10 days and 20 days, and then go to the general prosecution again for a maximum of 20 days. There was a discussion about whether it would be 40 days in total.
But what are we going to do about this? Isn't this too much? If you interpret it like that, it's too much of an interpretation. As a result, let's see the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the prosecution gather and put the total number of prosecutors in charge of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the prosecution's arrest period at a maximum of 20 days. Then, is it the 10th? There are no regulations on that, but we agreed to do it half by half.
[Anchor]
So, 40 days is too much for someone, so isn't it too much for someone who has been arrested? Is this what you're talking about?
[Sonho]
That's right. In investigating the arrested suspect, the legal prosecution stage is 10 days plus 10 days, and the arrest period is 10 days. With the creation of a new Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is 10 days plus 10 days. And in this case, you have to hand over the transfer to the prosecution for prosecution. Then, is it 10 days plus 10 days for the prosecution to receive it? It can be interpreted as up to 40 days, but this is personally a very unreasonable interpretation. It seems to be a great violation of the constitutional rights of the arrested suspect. There's an element of unconstitutionality. Therefore, 20 days is the longest in total, so what are you going to do with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the general inspection? We also discussed this and decided on it. To this extent, various confusion will continue to arise regarding the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit.
[Anchor]
So, we need to look at the second execution process of the arrest warrant, but some point out that the incompetence of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has been revealed in connection with this issue, and some even argue for abolition. What do you think about this part?
[Chajinah]
So, I don't know if you remember at the time of making the Corruption Investigations Unit Act, but it was a fast-track incident at the time. So, I forced Rep. Oh Shin-hwan and Rep. Kwon Eun-hee to save these people and created this Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit Act amid all kinds of confusion, and this is what constitutional scholars were very concerned about at the time. That's why the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is very small in terms of manpower and organization, and that's why the Special Prosecutor will be created as a permanent special prosecutor.
So, I made the organization very small because I was worried that it would become too big and abuse its authority. What's wrong with it is that it requires a certain period of investigation experience in relation to the qualifications of the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. However, as the Democratic Party of Korea refused to demand an investigation experience due to opposition, the expertise of the investigation was very low, and the manpower and organization were very weak. Even though the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is now in its second phase, it has not achieved any significant results.In the case of a rebellion like this, there are too many accomplices and it is very difficult to apply the interpretation of the law.
However, why this Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which has no manpower or organization at all and is very weak in terms of professionalism, and lacks the ability, asks the prosecution and police to transfer all the cases to them, and continues to hold this. By doing so, the efficiency of the investigation is greatly undermined, and on the contrary, he continues to give President Yoon an excuse, such as slapping someone who wants to cry. That's why I'm facing this criticism that it's only interfering with the investigation, so I think it's more appropriate to abolish it when it comes to this type of airlift.
[Anchor]
Let's take a look at the state of the National Assembly at this point. At the plenary session of the National Assembly, a re-vote is taking place on the twin special prosecution law. Let's go to the scene. Members are currently voting. These are eight bills that will be re-voted today. First, six bills, including the grain management law, will be counted first, followed by two independent counsel laws. The vote will be counted in the order of the independent counsel law related to the civil war and the independent counsel law related to Kim Gun-hee. These bills were vetoed by Acting President Choi Sang-mok on the 31st of last month. In order for the independent counsel law to be passed today, more than two-thirds of the lawmakers present must approve the attendance of a majority of the registered members. Therefore, even if all opposition parties agree, it is a situation in which at least eight votes in favor must be removed from the power of the people to pass.
This is a key part of attention right now to see if eight people can leave today. Attention is focusing on whether the twin special prosecution law will be re-voted and passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly today. The power of the people has decided to reject the bill again this time, but the Democratic Party of Korea has put forward this policy that it will propose a bill again even if it is rejected. As soon as the results of the vote come out, I will connect you and give you detailed news. In addition, the Constitutional Court is facing another dispute over whether the Constitutional Court recommended the National Assembly withdraw the rebellion over the exclusion of the rebellion from the reason for President Yoon's impeachment. Let's listen to the recordings related to this. I think the court recommended us to the last part you heard. So, the National Assembly's agent made this statement, but the expression "recommendation" became controversial. How did you see this part, professor?
[Chajinah]
This is a very misunderstood expression. Perhaps in the preparation period for the hearing, the judges said that they had organized the constitutional issues in accordance with the characteristics of the constitutional litigation, and summarized the four reasons for impeachment in the impeachment resolution, so what do you think about this argument, organize it, and the prosecution will change the legal application of criminal law violations to constitutional violations, and this means that the Constitutional Court should organize it like this. I think they said this to the purpose of this.
However, as you recommended, does this mean that you will withdraw your claim of rebellion, or that you will actually withdraw it because you exercise your right to make a statement, and did you recommend that this lead to the removal of the crime of rebellion? Did the judge recommend that the crime of rebellion be removed, so he responded to it and removed the crime of rebellion, or did the misunderstanding lead to this kind of misunderstanding? This is a very worrisome misunderstanding. But this is actually a constitutional lawsuit legally, and this is a disciplinary procedure. So it's kind of an administrative trial. Therefore, in the impeachment trial, it is an administrative trial, so whether or not a crime of rebellion is established is actually done by the criminal court, and here, it is not necessary to do this directly in the criminal trial whether or not the crime of rebellion is established.
Therefore, it seems to be such an argument that the facts corresponding to the act of civil war will remain the same and only the application of the law will be changed to a violation of the Constitution, not criminal law. So if I give you an example of this, it's like this because the people are so difficult. For example, among the acts of rebellion in the impeachment resolution, isn't there something like this, for example? In order to exercise the right to demand the lifting of martial law, lawmakers were sitting in the plenary session, and they told them to pull them out because it seems that there were not 150 yet, so they ordered to pull them out, quickly pull them out, and lock them up. If you do that, for example, in the impeachment resolution, there was a riot and the purpose of the national constitution in the crime of rebellion.
So, the purpose of the National Constitution is to neutralize the National Assembly, and riots are about several people joining together to assault or threaten. That's why a lot of people are pulling out lawmakers. So this is assault, intimidation. That's why it becomes a riot. And because it's being pulled out to prevent them from exercising their right to demand the lifting of martial law, so this becomes a part of the establishment of a rebellion called a rioter for the purpose of national constitution.
But what I'm saying is to leave this fact as it is, so I'm not saying I'm going to get rid of the parliamentarians sitting in the plenary hall to prevent them from exercising their right to lift martial law, but I'm going to leave it as it is, but I'm going to explain it differently. So what you do is that if it's a violation of the Constitution, it's a violation of the National Assembly's authority to drag out lawmakers to prevent the passage of the National Assembly's martial law request. So this is a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of the separation of powers, under the criminal law. And because it's pulled out, it's used violence, it's used violence, it's used violence, so it's a riot. It's a riot under the criminal law, but it's a constitution that violates the freedom of the body and this is what happens.
It violates basic rights and violates the separation of powers. In this way, the explanation is different. The prosecution explains that the applicable legal regulations are not a crime of rebellion under the criminal law, but a violation of the separation of powers under the constitution, a violation of the rule of law, or a violation of basic rights.
[Anchor]
The contents of the case are the same, but the explanation is different. However, President Yoon's side claims that 80% of the impeachment prosecution has been withdrawn, excluding the crime of rebellion from the reason for impeachment. What do you think about this part?
[Chajinah]
So the argument makes some sense because it was the same during the impeachment of President Park Geun Hye. At that time, it was bribery, obstruction of the exercise of the right to abuse authority, coercion, and so on. However, for example, when establishing the K Foundation or the Mir Foundation, it's the crime of forcing companies to contribute. But the way I solved this was to change it to infringement of corporate freedom and basic rights. But the crime of rebellion in this case is that a series of actions are tied together for one purpose. Various acts are grouped into whether they were aimed at neutralizing the National Assembly, but during the Park Geun Hye presidency, they could be evaluated individually.
In this regard, most of the reasons for President Yoon's impeachment were to use violence or intimidation for the purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly, so there are some things that are brought together, so it is a little difficult, and theoretically, the prosecution's argument is correct. But politically, the majority of the people can't tell this apart. I can't do it, and I think most people are impeached for rebellion. I thought I should impeach him because he's the head of the rebellion, but he's going to take out the rebellion? So what are you impeaching? Do I take it out because I don't think the crime of rebellion can be established? This probably doesn't seem easy politically because of the fact that you can even have this illusion.
[Anchor]
So, it only excludes the word "crime of rebellion," but it means that the facts remain the same. There was a battle between the ruling and opposition parties in this regard. Let's listen to the content of this workshop and continue the conversation. Did this issue have prior communication or not? It was spreading to this controversy, and the power of the people even said this. If the impeachment motion did not include the crime of rebellion, some people say that the National Assembly should vote on this issue again because the members of the People's Power who voted for impeachment at the time may not have approved it. How do you see this situation?
[Sonho]
First of all, since you are a politician, you have a political party and your own political position, you can fully consider and listen to such a politician's political argument. However, at least legally, it seems that there is not much controversy as the professor kindly explained in very detail. Nevertheless, it feels very big for the people to be accepted by the public. Since there have been such terms that are bound to be misunderstood over and over again, there are aspects that the people accept as such, or regardless of that, the judgment seems to vary depending on the political forces they support and support without the intention of making a legal judgment on this matter.
In the end, it is a legal issue, but in fact, I think it is a situation that is being expressed as if it is not a legal issue. And now, this is not the first time this is an issue. Unfortunately, this is the third presidential impeachment trial in Korea. However, there was the same problem at the time of former President Roh Moo Hyun and former President Park Geun Hye. So I made the same judgment. And I'm going to make the same judgment again this time.
[Anchor]
There's no problem?
[Sonho]
That's right. So if I quote this briefly because it's not long, there were many things if you look at the prosecution as the professor kindly said at the time of former President Park Geun Hye.Ma organized this. They tied it, took it out, and changed the location, but in the end, various criminal law violations, such as bribery, were committed. I'm reading it as it is. The issue was simplified by including Choi Seo-won's intervention in state affairs and the president's abuse of authority. In this part, in the end, I quoted another precedent in the past at the bottom. That is also the case of former President Roh Moo Hyun. It's going to end up like that this time.
So the crime of rebellion has not disappeared. And the part of the rebellion remains the same. Therefore, there is no difference in determining whether the president will be dismissed. However, the impact on the public is quite significant, so we cannot rule out the possibility that it will have many indirect effects in the end, and I did not approve of it if there was no expression of rebellion at the time that the People's Power lawmakers said. This idea may be true.
Or, as the political situation changes now, there is a possibility that some breakthrough is needed or some excuse is needed, but it's good. Anyway, in the legal part, it's actually not a big controversy, but it's hard to explain and there are quite a few people who don't want to listen to it, so this part still seems to have become a completely political issue already.
[Anchor]
The Constitutional Court will also determine whether the withdrawal of the rebellion under the criminal law constitutes a significant change in the reason for impeachment, which means that the Constitutional Court will ultimately decide this. When will that conclusion come out?
[Chajinah]
I think I'll probably reveal it on the first hearing date. Or, before that, I can tell you through the press officer.Ma is such a controversial situation that there seems to be no need to disclose it in advance, and I think it would be enough to reveal it on the pleading date.
[Anchor]
There is no disagreement between the professor and the lawyer on this part that nothing has changed much legally, but President Yoon's lawyers are the same legal professionals. I think I'm sure I know about this issue, but should I just interpret it as a political slogan to make this argument? What do you think?
[Chajinah]
No, not necessarily, and I think theoretically, but what makes it a little different from former President Park Geun Hye is that they were not the main issues under President Park Geun Hye. It's not the main issue, but Choi Seo-won, so Choi Soon-sil's influence. So the key point was that state power was misused in an abnormal way.
And incidentally, criminal activity was not a big issue at the time because it wasn't a big issue whether it was established or not. This impeachment, however, was a huge shock to me because the head of the insurrection was so guilty that it played a critical role in the actual impeachment motion, and the people who were trapped there once in the insurrection frame were subjected to such grave violations as almost political death sentences. Not only is it very unfair in that regard, but what I think about legally, because these are individual criminal acts during the Park Geun Hye presidency. Those facts that are the basis for President Yoon's impeachment are gathered for one purpose.
Since it is gathered as a purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly, that is, whether there was a purpose of the National Constitution, in the end, whether or not the crime of rebellion is established is established. Even if we do not make this judgment, we have no choice but to judge the legal judgment that is the basis for the establishment of the crime of rebellion, that is, whether martial law was declared, martial law proclamation was issued, and various instructions were given for the purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly. So it's a legal argument that has no basis at all, and it's hard to see.
[Anchor]
I see. So far, we have looked into legal issues with Cha Jin-ah, a professor of law at Korea University, and lawyer Sohn So-ho. Thank you.
※ 'Your report becomes news'
[Kakao Talk] YTN Search and Add Channel
[Phone] 02-398-8585
[Mail] social@ytn. co. kr
[Copyright holder (c) YTN Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution and use of AI data prohibited]
■ Starring: Cha Jin-ah, professor of law at Korea University, lawyer So Soo-ho
* 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]
There is a growing possibility of physical conflict between the Joint Investigation Headquarters trying to enter the official residence and the Presidential Security Service to prevent it ahead of the second execution of the warrant after the court reissued the arrest warrant for President Yoon. Ahead of the execution of the second arrest warrant, let's point out the legal issues and concerns raised. Cha Jin-ah, a professor at Korea University's Graduate School of Law, and Sohn So-ho, a lawyer, are with us. Please come in. I'd like to point out what President Yoon's lawyers said a little while ago. A little while ago, lawyer Yoon Gap-geun said he has no change in his position to refuse to comply with the arrest warrant, saying that he would go out if he requested an indictment or a preliminary arrest warrant before executing the arrest warrant. How did you hear this part?
[Chajinah]
Therefore, it seems that from the perspective of President Yoon's lawyers, the warrant issued by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is also invalid because the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the right to investigate. Therefore, it seems that they cannot respond to the investigation of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but they will respond to such a preliminary arrest warrant because it is legal.
[Anchor]
And the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit filed an arrest warrant with the Western District Court and it was issued by the Western District Court. So I'm continuing to take issue with this part as well. Why the Western District Court, not the Central District Court. President Yoon's side is saying, "Isn't it in jurisdiction?" Today, he even said that if he asks for an arrest warrant with the Seoul Central District Court, he will comply with the procedure. What did you think about this part?
[Sonho]
The president is raising a number of procedural issues, but there is some reason. In particular, the jurisdiction pointed out by the host a while ago is also worth listening to. However, there is an aspect in which both sides' arguments are correct. Because there's no rule that goes down. In the end, the court must make a judgment to determine whether it is legal or illegal to make a claim to the Western District Court. In order to be judged by the court, an arrest warrant is executed, arrested, and an arrest warrant is requested for judgment before the result is made, or if an arrest warrant is requested before the result is released, it is judged at the arrest warrant stage.
However, in order to receive such a judgment, an arrest must be made first. But now, I can't be judged because I'm resisting so that I don't get to that stage. But it was my first time in this situation, and I challenged the issuance of the warrant, and I expected the court to not answer that.Ma also answered that by the court. It means that there is no problem if you look at these parts and the contents. If so, the president's argument seems to have some truth, but no state agency has ruled that the arrest warrant, issued at least twice by the court, is illegal, illegal, invalid or against the Constitution.
If so, at this stage, the president seems to have a priority to accept court warrants. However, what is issued now is an arrest warrant. So you're not bound for this, you're not prosecuted, you're not convicted, you're not fired. I'm simply calling in to investigate because I didn't respond to the request for attendance. I think we should consider that stage a little.
[Anchor]
Then, if we listen to President Yoon's position, should we understand that the police, not the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, should take charge of this case?
[Chajinah]
It seems to be such an argument. So if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit promptly transfers it to the police and the police summon it, they will respond, right? And if you request a preliminary arrest warrant, don't you have a chance to explain yourself before you are arrested? If you give yourself a chance to explain yourself, you will comply with the warrant if it is issued, but it is difficult to comply with the arrest warrant because it was issued unilaterally by the investigative agency.
[Anchor]
There is also a new story that lawyer Yoon Gap-geun said, and it is said that he made this statement that it is an institutional principle to conduct a rebellion investigation after the impeachment trial. So, the impeachment trial is being conducted in the Constitutional Court and the civil war investigation is being conducted in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Is there any systematic order like this?
[Chajinah]
It is not systematically stipulated, but Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Act stipulates that if the impeachment trial proceeds for the same reason and the criminal trial proceeds at the same time, the impeachment trial process can be suspended while the criminal trial process proceeds.It's the discretion of the Constitutional Court. And because of the severity of the matter, the long-term administration of the acting system makes the state even more chaotic, so the Constitutional Court does not seem to have accepted the request. So, there is no seniority, but I think it is an expression of this position that President Yoon's lawyers and agents say that they will not be investigated as an incumbent president.
[Anchor]
So, at around 7 p.m. last night, the arrest and search warrants for President Yoon were reissued, and at this point, President Yoon's lawyers expressed this position, so I have no intention of responding again, right?
[Sonho]
That's right. In the meantime, many legal professionals and the public have thought that if at least some stage passes, they will not respond to the investigation or cooperate with the process. The same goes for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. However, looking at them talking like that even at the stage, it seems to be solidifying the idea that the warrant itself is illegal. Or it seems that they have established a thorough policy to make that argument. Therefore, it does not seem very likely that we will continue to voluntarily and arbitrarily cooperate with the process in the future.
[Anchor]
A second arrest warrant was also issued by the Western District Court. The judge is known as another judge, but it is illegal for this warrant. And President Yoon claims that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the right to investigate, but the second warrant was issued and the investigation right was recognized. Can I look at it like this? What do you think?
[Chajinah]
It's hard to say that it was ultimately recognized because it was a lower court.Ma has the right to investigate civil war or not.Ma has been issued warrants for other accomplices as a related crime of abuse of authority, but the speciality is that President Yoon's position is that he can only investigate crimes of rebellion and foreign exchange against the incumbent president, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has no right to investigate the very crime.
That makes sense.Ma said, "At least twice in the court, it is a violation of the president's duty to protect the constitution to protest his position, such as responding to the execution of the warrant, responding to the summons request, and filing an objection through due process.
[Anchor]
First of all, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is putting all of its life and death into the execution of the second warrant. Based on President Yoon's position, is there a possibility that the case will be transferred from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to the police? What do you think?
[Sonho]
Legally, there is a possibility of a transfer. According to the Corruption Investigations Unit Act, this is also a part that can be judged at the discretion of the Corruption Investigations Unit, and there is a provision that the case can be transferred to another investigative agency. So it's possible. However, given the position shown by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit so far, we have withdrawn it.There was also a kind of happening where Ma entrusted the police to execute the warrant and then reversed it again. Given this, there seems to be no willingness to transfer. In other words, an arrest warrant was executed and eventually interrogated, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will proceed with the interrogation of the suspect, the president. And after that, it seems that they are willing to proceed with the follow-up procedure as soon as they have consulted with the prosecution.
However, various controversies and confusion were created in the first place with a good intention of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but they were made without proper preparation, and there is inevitable confusion as unexpected things suddenly break out like this. Of course, aside from the inherent problems, I think it's right to go to a certain extent to solve these problems in the current situation. So, from the perspective of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the survival of the organization is important, and their performance is also important.More important than that is how to legally end the national turmoil early and also how to respond to the president's objections and refutations. If so, I think it would be a faster way to follow the procedure as the president wants after transferring it again according to the procedure.
[Anchor]
Professor, what do you think? So, the execution of arrest warrants is actually a situation that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit should do with the help of the police, but the investigation itself should be re-transferred to the police. What do you think about this position?
[Chajinah]
That's what I think, too. The best thing is for President Yoon to attend voluntarily by coordinating the venue and schedule between the lawyers and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit even now.Ma seems unlikely at the moment, so if so, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will transfer to the police and respond if the police summon him, so I think that investigating and then requesting an arrest warrant is a way to minimize this confusion for now.
[Anchor]
And just a moment ago, President Yoon's lawyers also expressed their position on the rumor of the president's escape. While the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police discussed the timing and method of execution of the second arrest warrant, various suspicions were raised about President Yoon's future. Let's hear the voice of Senior Superintendent of Public Offenses Oh Dong-woon who attended the National Assembly yesterday.
[Anchor]
Some said that President Yoon fled to a third place, and Oh Dong-woon, the head of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, heard about it and said, "I will consider it comprehensively," and said, "Is there a possibility?" Today, President Yoon's lawyers saw the president at his residence last night.
[Sonho]
That's right. We don't know where the president is now. But I'm currently in the process of being fired, and I don't know if I'll be fired or not.Ma, and the suspect under investigation. However, even so, he is the incumbent president. Then, would the president have evacuated or fled somewhere in the current situation? I don't think so. Also, I hope that's not the case. If this is true, I think it's an event that really has a big impact on national prestige.
And on the contrary, from a different angle, it is also necessary to think about why the opposition party is raising the issue in this area. First of all, it's possible that the first one actually avoided somewhere. You can't rule it out. And the second, even if it is not and is currently in the residence, do not escape anywhere at the time of the execution of the second warrant. It may be a warning that you shouldn't escape. And there are a lot of security personnel and other people protecting the president at the presidential residence.
Then there are not only high-ranking government officials who are very strongly politically united or are a little bit collusive at other levels, but also general careers. However, in this case, if the president is not here or the president has already fled somewhere, there may be various confusion in complying with the orders of the superiors. Or you can have a lot of thoughts. I also think it's a comprehensive preliminary work aimed at this.
[Anchor]
So, on the president's part, as you just heard, malicious and false propaganda is taking place. in connection with this matter And if the president really fled to not comply with the execution of this arrest warrant, if he's somewhere else. Is there no legal problem? What do you think?
[Chajinah]
There is a possibility that it is theoretically possible, but would it have been realistically so, I think lawyer Sohn and I are similar. It shouldn't be, and if it's true, this is the very reason for an arrest warrant, isn't there a fear of running away? So if that's true, I think it's not an arrest warrant right away, but an arrest warrant.
[Sonho]
And if you're asking for this purpose, isn't it another crime for the host to escape or escape, there is a crime of escape under our law. However, this crime of escape is a crime that occurs when such a person flees after being arrested or detained according to the law. Therefore, as the professor said, it is likely to go to the request for an arrest warrant and examination in the future, but moving somewhere separately now may be a constitutional problem, but it is difficult to see it as an additional crime under the criminal law.
[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is concentrating on the second execution, and President Yoon is in a position that he can never respond to it. In this situation, if the second execution attempt is made, there will be another strong conflict, right?
[Sonho]
That's what I'm very worried about. First of all, we never thought that the president would not comply with legal procedures until the end. And even if there are various interpretations, controversies, and dislikes of the president, I think it's hard to believe that he treats the execution of warrants issued by the court this rough and strong, even if there is a separate political strategy. Of course, politically, supporting someone or not supporting anyone is a separate matter.
However, no matter who is in this situation now, it is very worrisome to prevent the execution of the warrant now, no matter which party the president is in this situation now. As a result, it is confirmed that several levels of cordon have been set as shown on the screen and that facilities, facilities, and manpower have been strengthened even more than at the time of the first warrant execution. If so, there is a need to execute the warrant, and there is a legal basis, and many people want it.We cannot rule out the possibility of a real conflict and a tragedy if Ma deals with it without preparation.
I don't want that to happen, but first, I don't want it to happen. But you can't do that. Then, second, the president can respond to the arrest. But it's hard to expect that possibility. If so, I think that lowering the possibility of a collision is a realistic way to make sure that preparation and strong, and to minimize and execute the collision quickly and quickly. However, as I mentioned just a moment ago, this quick execution does not mean to resist conflicts and maximize various physical exercises for security personnel, but to do it quickly enough to resist.
And the police are very capable and very experienced in these tasks. That's why it's a matter of will, and it's not that difficult to make a decision with a certain amount of justification accumulated, but it's very politically complex. It seems that consideration in that respect should follow.
[Anchor]
As you can see on the screen, we could have seen such a scene of installing barbed wire fences, but it is illegal for the president to put a police mobile team in a first-class confidential area. He expressed his position on why the police task force, which is in charge of security affairs, is doing investigation work. Is this illegal?
[Chajinah]
Yes, strictly speaking, the argument also has a point. This is because police are divided into administrative police and judicial police according to their duties. The judicial police are the police in charge of these investigations. And when executing a warrant, a prosecutor directs it and a judicial police official executes it, and eventually, you can get help from the police, but you have to get help from the judicial police. However, what the task force does is not a judicial police, but an administrative police because it is a police officer who maintains various orders in the field. If you use these administrative police to execute a warrant, it may be illegal in itself. I think that's why I'm making that point.
[Anchor]
And yesterday, the police asked Park Jong-joon, the head of the presidential bodyguard, to appear by 10 a.m. the day after tomorrow. I asked for the third attendance like this. If Director Park continues to refuse, he is reportedly considering an arrest warrant, so how do you expect this part to develop in the future?
[Sonho]
There are quite a few cases where ordinary lawyers like us take a bit of time to work or try to create more variables. Whether it's civil or detective, it's the same. However, it is a little unfamiliar to see this in a case involving the president. I also feel that this should not be the case, but at least in principle, such a request to give time cannot be considered unfair because a lawyer has not been appointed. And there is no legal problem with appointing a lawyer to fully prepare for the investigation and then saying that they will respond. It makes sense.
However, looking at the current situation, I think it's a little hard to accept that expression as it is. In other words, if you look at the context, I will not respond until the end. I will not go out voluntarily even if I am dragged out. I think it would be right to interpret the message as a strong expression of such a message, that I will be with the president. That's why I've asked the security chief to appear several times, and if he doesn't respond to that request, I'll get an arrest warrant. If I'm a Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or a police officer, I think I'll first execute an arrest warrant for the security chief.
If that's the case, in the case of the president, he's using defense logic for various legal reasons, such as investigative power and jurisdiction.The situation is completely different for public officials such as Ma's security chief.
can be a situation where there is no legal point to blame. In such a situation, if you get an arrest warrant for the security chief, etc., and take it with you to execute it, will you not respond and close the door like now? Or will the scrum be drawn up and prevented by several personnel. Then, unlike the case of the president, legal judgment and police judgment on the spot can be much easier.
[Anchor]
So, what do you think about the possibility of a psychological change in the case of the police's request for the summons of the security personnel, including the chief of security?
[Chajinah]
Maybe you can't think that there's any psychological change in itself, but you're probably preparing for all those things. So, unless they are physically arrested or arrested, they seem to be determined to do their security work properly until the end.
[Anchor]
In addition, I'm curious about something a little bit earlier, the police sent an official letter to Park Jong-joon, the head of the security service, asking him to attend by 10 a.m. the day after tomorrow. If I don't attend until then, can I be arrested as a red-handed criminal after the attendance deadline after Friday morning? What do you think?
[Sonho]
I think the arrest of the current criminal was already possible at the time of the first warrant execution. And even now, we're not trying to execute a warrant.Ma is in a situation where various kinds of defensive actions continue. If so, at least in a broad sense, I think the current criminal will still be the case. In addition, if you commit such an act as the first when you execute a warrant for the second time, you will be recognized as a red offender again. But now, rather than arresting him as a current offender, I think it would be possible to confuse the president's side to get an arrest warrant for Chief Park Jong-joon and try to execute such a warrant first.
[Anchor]
If the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police break through the resistance of the security service and arrest President Yoon, will the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit be able to continue the investigation properly? There are also fundamental concerns about this, but if an arrest warrant is requested for President Yoon within 48 hours, the time given to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is only 12 days. What's wrong with this?
[Chajinah]
It's not fixed yet. The prosecutor's arrest period can be extended 10 days or 10 days, so it is 20 days. However, since the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the right to prosecute the president, it must investigate and then hand over the case to the prosecution for prosecution anyway. However, in the end, the prosecution has to write an indictment to prosecute, but for that to happen, the case needs to be reviewed again. Isn't that going to take time?
However, a total of 20 days of imprisonment is applied to both the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the prosecution. So, there is no regulation on how to use this, but if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit arrests Moon Sang-ho and passes him to the prosecution for prosecution, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit uses up this arrest period and passes it to the prosecution for an imminent arrest period, it is difficult to maintain the prosecution if the prosecution mechanically indicts him without reviewing it. So, on the 10th and 10th, it is said that the agreement was made only for this case. But this was an unusual agreement, and we have to discuss what to do about the president again, so this is also evident in this situation how crude the Corruption Investigations Unit Act was.
[Sonho]
Actually, I agree with the part that the professor pointed out now. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the prosecution have consulted. If this consultation itself is clearly defined in the law, there is no need for a consultation. But the controversy that came out at first is that the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is also a prosecutor. And the prosecutor in the prosecution is also a prosecutor. Therefore, the arrest period is 10 days at the prosecution stage, and it can be extended once within 10 days. It's a maximum of 20 days. So, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can arrest you for 10 days plus 10 days and 20 days, and then go to the general prosecution again for a maximum of 20 days. There was a discussion about whether it would be 40 days in total.
But what are we going to do about this? Isn't this too much? If you interpret it like that, it's too much of an interpretation. As a result, let's see the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the prosecution gather and put the total number of prosecutors in charge of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the prosecution's arrest period at a maximum of 20 days. Then, is it the 10th? There are no regulations on that, but we agreed to do it half by half.
[Anchor]
So, 40 days is too much for someone, so isn't it too much for someone who has been arrested? Is this what you're talking about?
[Sonho]
That's right. In investigating the arrested suspect, the legal prosecution stage is 10 days plus 10 days, and the arrest period is 10 days. With the creation of a new Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is 10 days plus 10 days. And in this case, you have to hand over the transfer to the prosecution for prosecution. Then, is it 10 days plus 10 days for the prosecution to receive it? It can be interpreted as up to 40 days, but this is personally a very unreasonable interpretation. It seems to be a great violation of the constitutional rights of the arrested suspect. There's an element of unconstitutionality. Therefore, 20 days is the longest in total, so what are you going to do with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the general inspection? We also discussed this and decided on it. To this extent, various confusion will continue to arise regarding the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit.
[Anchor]
So, we need to look at the second execution process of the arrest warrant, but some point out that the incompetence of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has been revealed in connection with this issue, and some even argue for abolition. What do you think about this part?
[Chajinah]
So, I don't know if you remember at the time of making the Corruption Investigations Unit Act, but it was a fast-track incident at the time. So, I forced Rep. Oh Shin-hwan and Rep. Kwon Eun-hee to save these people and created this Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit Act amid all kinds of confusion, and this is what constitutional scholars were very concerned about at the time. That's why the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is very small in terms of manpower and organization, and that's why the Special Prosecutor will be created as a permanent special prosecutor.
So, I made the organization very small because I was worried that it would become too big and abuse its authority. What's wrong with it is that it requires a certain period of investigation experience in relation to the qualifications of the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. However, as the Democratic Party of Korea refused to demand an investigation experience due to opposition, the expertise of the investigation was very low, and the manpower and organization were very weak. Even though the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is now in its second phase, it has not achieved any significant results.In the case of a rebellion like this, there are too many accomplices and it is very difficult to apply the interpretation of the law.
However, why this Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which has no manpower or organization at all and is very weak in terms of professionalism, and lacks the ability, asks the prosecution and police to transfer all the cases to them, and continues to hold this. By doing so, the efficiency of the investigation is greatly undermined, and on the contrary, he continues to give President Yoon an excuse, such as slapping someone who wants to cry. That's why I'm facing this criticism that it's only interfering with the investigation, so I think it's more appropriate to abolish it when it comes to this type of airlift.
[Anchor]
Let's take a look at the state of the National Assembly at this point. At the plenary session of the National Assembly, a re-vote is taking place on the twin special prosecution law. Let's go to the scene. Members are currently voting. These are eight bills that will be re-voted today. First, six bills, including the grain management law, will be counted first, followed by two independent counsel laws. The vote will be counted in the order of the independent counsel law related to the civil war and the independent counsel law related to Kim Gun-hee. These bills were vetoed by Acting President Choi Sang-mok on the 31st of last month. In order for the independent counsel law to be passed today, more than two-thirds of the lawmakers present must approve the attendance of a majority of the registered members. Therefore, even if all opposition parties agree, it is a situation in which at least eight votes in favor must be removed from the power of the people to pass.
This is a key part of attention right now to see if eight people can leave today. Attention is focusing on whether the twin special prosecution law will be re-voted and passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly today. The power of the people has decided to reject the bill again this time, but the Democratic Party of Korea has put forward this policy that it will propose a bill again even if it is rejected. As soon as the results of the vote come out, I will connect you and give you detailed news. In addition, the Constitutional Court is facing another dispute over whether the Constitutional Court recommended the National Assembly withdraw the rebellion over the exclusion of the rebellion from the reason for President Yoon's impeachment. Let's listen to the recordings related to this. I think the court recommended us to the last part you heard. So, the National Assembly's agent made this statement, but the expression "recommendation" became controversial. How did you see this part, professor?
[Chajinah]
This is a very misunderstood expression. Perhaps in the preparation period for the hearing, the judges said that they had organized the constitutional issues in accordance with the characteristics of the constitutional litigation, and summarized the four reasons for impeachment in the impeachment resolution, so what do you think about this argument, organize it, and the prosecution will change the legal application of criminal law violations to constitutional violations, and this means that the Constitutional Court should organize it like this. I think they said this to the purpose of this.
However, as you recommended, does this mean that you will withdraw your claim of rebellion, or that you will actually withdraw it because you exercise your right to make a statement, and did you recommend that this lead to the removal of the crime of rebellion? Did the judge recommend that the crime of rebellion be removed, so he responded to it and removed the crime of rebellion, or did the misunderstanding lead to this kind of misunderstanding? This is a very worrisome misunderstanding. But this is actually a constitutional lawsuit legally, and this is a disciplinary procedure. So it's kind of an administrative trial. Therefore, in the impeachment trial, it is an administrative trial, so whether or not a crime of rebellion is established is actually done by the criminal court, and here, it is not necessary to do this directly in the criminal trial whether or not the crime of rebellion is established.
Therefore, it seems to be such an argument that the facts corresponding to the act of civil war will remain the same and only the application of the law will be changed to a violation of the Constitution, not criminal law. So if I give you an example of this, it's like this because the people are so difficult. For example, among the acts of rebellion in the impeachment resolution, isn't there something like this, for example? In order to exercise the right to demand the lifting of martial law, lawmakers were sitting in the plenary session, and they told them to pull them out because it seems that there were not 150 yet, so they ordered to pull them out, quickly pull them out, and lock them up. If you do that, for example, in the impeachment resolution, there was a riot and the purpose of the national constitution in the crime of rebellion.
So, the purpose of the National Constitution is to neutralize the National Assembly, and riots are about several people joining together to assault or threaten. That's why a lot of people are pulling out lawmakers. So this is assault, intimidation. That's why it becomes a riot. And because it's being pulled out to prevent them from exercising their right to demand the lifting of martial law, so this becomes a part of the establishment of a rebellion called a rioter for the purpose of national constitution.
But what I'm saying is to leave this fact as it is, so I'm not saying I'm going to get rid of the parliamentarians sitting in the plenary hall to prevent them from exercising their right to lift martial law, but I'm going to leave it as it is, but I'm going to explain it differently. So what you do is that if it's a violation of the Constitution, it's a violation of the National Assembly's authority to drag out lawmakers to prevent the passage of the National Assembly's martial law request. So this is a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of the separation of powers, under the criminal law. And because it's pulled out, it's used violence, it's used violence, it's used violence, so it's a riot. It's a riot under the criminal law, but it's a constitution that violates the freedom of the body and this is what happens.
It violates basic rights and violates the separation of powers. In this way, the explanation is different. The prosecution explains that the applicable legal regulations are not a crime of rebellion under the criminal law, but a violation of the separation of powers under the constitution, a violation of the rule of law, or a violation of basic rights.
[Anchor]
The contents of the case are the same, but the explanation is different. However, President Yoon's side claims that 80% of the impeachment prosecution has been withdrawn, excluding the crime of rebellion from the reason for impeachment. What do you think about this part?
[Chajinah]
So the argument makes some sense because it was the same during the impeachment of President Park Geun Hye. At that time, it was bribery, obstruction of the exercise of the right to abuse authority, coercion, and so on. However, for example, when establishing the K Foundation or the Mir Foundation, it's the crime of forcing companies to contribute. But the way I solved this was to change it to infringement of corporate freedom and basic rights. But the crime of rebellion in this case is that a series of actions are tied together for one purpose. Various acts are grouped into whether they were aimed at neutralizing the National Assembly, but during the Park Geun Hye presidency, they could be evaluated individually.
In this regard, most of the reasons for President Yoon's impeachment were to use violence or intimidation for the purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly, so there are some things that are brought together, so it is a little difficult, and theoretically, the prosecution's argument is correct. But politically, the majority of the people can't tell this apart. I can't do it, and I think most people are impeached for rebellion. I thought I should impeach him because he's the head of the rebellion, but he's going to take out the rebellion? So what are you impeaching? Do I take it out because I don't think the crime of rebellion can be established? This probably doesn't seem easy politically because of the fact that you can even have this illusion.
[Anchor]
So, it only excludes the word "crime of rebellion," but it means that the facts remain the same. There was a battle between the ruling and opposition parties in this regard. Let's listen to the content of this workshop and continue the conversation. Did this issue have prior communication or not? It was spreading to this controversy, and the power of the people even said this. If the impeachment motion did not include the crime of rebellion, some people say that the National Assembly should vote on this issue again because the members of the People's Power who voted for impeachment at the time may not have approved it. How do you see this situation?
[Sonho]
First of all, since you are a politician, you have a political party and your own political position, you can fully consider and listen to such a politician's political argument. However, at least legally, it seems that there is not much controversy as the professor kindly explained in very detail. Nevertheless, it feels very big for the people to be accepted by the public. Since there have been such terms that are bound to be misunderstood over and over again, there are aspects that the people accept as such, or regardless of that, the judgment seems to vary depending on the political forces they support and support without the intention of making a legal judgment on this matter.
In the end, it is a legal issue, but in fact, I think it is a situation that is being expressed as if it is not a legal issue. And now, this is not the first time this is an issue. Unfortunately, this is the third presidential impeachment trial in Korea. However, there was the same problem at the time of former President Roh Moo Hyun and former President Park Geun Hye. So I made the same judgment. And I'm going to make the same judgment again this time.
[Anchor]
There's no problem?
[Sonho]
That's right. So if I quote this briefly because it's not long, there were many things if you look at the prosecution as the professor kindly said at the time of former President Park Geun Hye.Ma organized this. They tied it, took it out, and changed the location, but in the end, various criminal law violations, such as bribery, were committed. I'm reading it as it is. The issue was simplified by including Choi Seo-won's intervention in state affairs and the president's abuse of authority. In this part, in the end, I quoted another precedent in the past at the bottom. That is also the case of former President Roh Moo Hyun. It's going to end up like that this time.
So the crime of rebellion has not disappeared. And the part of the rebellion remains the same. Therefore, there is no difference in determining whether the president will be dismissed. However, the impact on the public is quite significant, so we cannot rule out the possibility that it will have many indirect effects in the end, and I did not approve of it if there was no expression of rebellion at the time that the People's Power lawmakers said. This idea may be true.
Or, as the political situation changes now, there is a possibility that some breakthrough is needed or some excuse is needed, but it's good. Anyway, in the legal part, it's actually not a big controversy, but it's hard to explain and there are quite a few people who don't want to listen to it, so this part still seems to have become a completely political issue already.
[Anchor]
The Constitutional Court will also determine whether the withdrawal of the rebellion under the criminal law constitutes a significant change in the reason for impeachment, which means that the Constitutional Court will ultimately decide this. When will that conclusion come out?
[Chajinah]
I think I'll probably reveal it on the first hearing date. Or, before that, I can tell you through the press officer.Ma is such a controversial situation that there seems to be no need to disclose it in advance, and I think it would be enough to reveal it on the pleading date.
[Anchor]
There is no disagreement between the professor and the lawyer on this part that nothing has changed much legally, but President Yoon's lawyers are the same legal professionals. I think I'm sure I know about this issue, but should I just interpret it as a political slogan to make this argument? What do you think?
[Chajinah]
No, not necessarily, and I think theoretically, but what makes it a little different from former President Park Geun Hye is that they were not the main issues under President Park Geun Hye. It's not the main issue, but Choi Seo-won, so Choi Soon-sil's influence. So the key point was that state power was misused in an abnormal way.
And incidentally, criminal activity was not a big issue at the time because it wasn't a big issue whether it was established or not. This impeachment, however, was a huge shock to me because the head of the insurrection was so guilty that it played a critical role in the actual impeachment motion, and the people who were trapped there once in the insurrection frame were subjected to such grave violations as almost political death sentences. Not only is it very unfair in that regard, but what I think about legally, because these are individual criminal acts during the Park Geun Hye presidency. Those facts that are the basis for President Yoon's impeachment are gathered for one purpose.
Since it is gathered as a purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly, that is, whether there was a purpose of the National Constitution, in the end, whether or not the crime of rebellion is established is established. Even if we do not make this judgment, we have no choice but to judge the legal judgment that is the basis for the establishment of the crime of rebellion, that is, whether martial law was declared, martial law proclamation was issued, and various instructions were given for the purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly. So it's a legal argument that has no basis at all, and it's hard to see.
[Anchor]
I see. So far, we have looked into legal issues with Cha Jin-ah, a professor of law at Korea University, and lawyer Sohn So-ho. Thank you.
※ 'Your report becomes news'
[Kakao Talk] YTN Search and Add Channel
[Phone] 02-398-8585
[Mail] social@ytn. co. kr
[Copyright holder (c) YTN Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution and use of AI data prohibited]
Politics
More- First trial military court acquitted Marine Corps Colonel Park Jung-hoon of 'suspension charges'.
- Colonel Park Jung-hoon, "Promise with (Chae) Su-geun, I will keep it."
- [On-site video +] Park Jung-hoon's "not guilty without any major legal issues".
- [Speechless] Kim Sang-hoon, "With the power of the people..." Jung Sung-ho, "I don't look forward to it," Yoo In-tae, "Han Deok-soo, mystery."
![[On-site video +] Park Jung-hoon's "not guilty without any major legal issues".](https://image.ytn.co.kr/general/jpg/2025/0109/202501091102475827_h.jpg)
![[Interview] "Is Sung Ki Hoon the 2nd frontman?"What Lee Byung-hun calls "Squid Game" and 001](https://image.ytn.co.kr/general/jpg/2025/0109/202501091106588952_h.jpg)
