[News NIGHT] "Prosecute or arrest warrant"...agonizing over the re-enforcement of arrest warrants

■ Host: anchor Sung Moon-gyu
■ Starring: Choi Soo-young, political commentator, Park Won-seok, former lawmaker of the Justice Party

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

[Anchor]
It's time for "Focus Night" to point out the news of political interest. Today, we will be joined by political commentator Choi Soo-young and former Justice Party lawmaker Park Won-seok. Welcome, two of you. The president held a press conference today with a second arrest warrant issued for President Yoon. I reiterated that I can't comply with the execution of the warrant. Let's hear the related remarks first.

[Yoon Gap-geun / Yoon Suk Yeol's legal representative: When it comes to the execution or investigation of arrest warrants, first prosecute them or request a preliminary warrant, and then they will go to court. What is clear is that if a warrant is sought in the Western District Court (which has no jurisdiction), that part is simply unacceptable. Obviously the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is clearly the Central District Court. The President is not a representative of a district, but the best representative organization elected through a national vote. I think it is a civil war that the president in that position will unilaterally commit illegality and execute an arrest warrant. That is the civil war. ]

[Anchor]
Today's press conference was a bit long.Here's the point of drying. The arrest warrant issued by the Western District Court is invalid. If you request an arrest warrant from the Central District Court and issue it there, I will comply. I think it's summarized like this.

[Choi Soo-young]
That's right. But in fact, lawyer Yoon Gap-geun's point is not wrong. Therefore, according to the current law, Article 31 of the Public Offices Act stipulates that the jurisdiction of the first trial shall be the Seoul Central District Court if the Public Offices files a prosecution on the case. However, as an exception, there is an exception that the location of the case or if there are special circumstances, it can be done as a competent court under the Criminal Procedure Act. So the principle is to do it in the Central District Court. So, why did the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit choose a detour instead of going to the Central District Court from the beginning? When asked if he went to the Seoul Central District Court or the Western District Court, the public prosecutor's office is located in Hannam-dong, so the president's location is. So I said that I went to the Western District Court, which is the jurisdiction. So, it's half right and half wrong. Anyway, the president's lawyers, who had been silent, clearly stated that the Central District Court, not the Western District Court, is the Central District Court, or the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, or Plan B, or they will stop investigating the case now and prosecute it to get an arrest warrant, so the first principle will issue an arrest warrant again anyway. So I'm making it clear that I can't comply with this I got from the judge who issued the Western aid warrant. Even if it takes some time to make a principled move to the Seoul Central District Court, the ball actually went to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit because he said he was willing to appear or cooperate with the investigation. I wonder if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will receive this now that an arrest warrant is issued.

[Anchor]
It's not necessarily illegal because the Western District Court has exceptions, I heard.

[Choi Soo-young]
That's right.

[Anchor]
How did you hear it, Senator Park?

[Park Won-seok]
Well, I think it's kind of a time-consuming remark that's hard to make much sense. The execution of the arrest warrant is imminent, and perhaps the internal disturbance of the security service is considerable. Under the judgment that it would be difficult to prevent the execution of the warrant if we continue to stick to our previous attitude in this situation, we are talking about arrest warrants or indictments without arrest, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit cannot delay the execution of the warrant after hearing the defense's position. And it has been confirmed that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will also enforce the law according to the principle. It is acceptable if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit claims that the warrant requested by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is illegal because it has no investigative power. However, the conditions must be met with the Central District Court. That's what President Yoon is trying to do judge shopping. It's in the proviso to the Corruption Investigations Unit Act. It is not reasonable to claim that it is invalid because it was based on the proviso that the warrant court could be set as such a jurisdiction. While watching lawyer Yoon Gap-geun's press conference today, I strongly thought of that. The internal agitation of the security service is much bigger than I thought. I think I made this judgment that it is difficult to stop it as it is.

[Anchor]
I see. In the midst of this, is there a president in his official residence? The issue continues to appear yesterday and today, but rumors of the president's escape continue to appear from opposition parties. An Internet media outlet captured a person believed to be the president in a video captured at the entrance of the presidential residence today, making headlines during the day. In the end, Yoon's deputies clearly met with President Yoon at the presidential residence and confirmed that he was there. Why does this keep coming out?

[Choi Soo-young]
I don't know when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will get the second arrest warrant issued, but isn't it the process you're preparing now? However, I pay attention to the fact that this came from the words of Ahn Kyu-baek, a five-term lawmaker of the Democratic Party. Because in the case of lawmaker Ahn Kyu-baek, he has made some sniping remarks so far, but he did so here, he was informed. So I was informed that I was in a third place after leaving my official residence, but here is one aspect of my view. While talking about this, people such as Representative Kim Yong-min began to use the word of escape that the president fled, and this morning, the media all used the word escape and escape. So, in other words, I think that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit tried to humiliate the president by executing a warrant, pressuring public opinion, and then the Democratic Party cited the tipoff and framed the tipoff as one condition. So, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit must get an arrest warrant. Arrest is actually a process for investigation, not the peak of the investigation or the final process of the investigation. In fact, the investigation can be conducted anywhere, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit revealed the power of the authority by arresting the president, gave the impression that we overpowered the president in this case, and then the Democratic Party raised that the president had already left his official residence in the process, and applied the frame of escape to the president. That's why I shouldn't do things like this. Because of course, I've laid down a point where I said it was a tip-off, but in fact, the president is in his official residence right now. Where would he be? Of course, the security is in the mountains of Seoul.Ma then uses the expression "If the president fled, I fled," but if he did, how would this work in the Constitutional Court hearing? In terms of justification, this is fatal. If so, I think the Democratic Party made a political offensive by strongly fleeing and framing the escape in the morning with something that would not be done.

[Anchor]
The presidential office today accused the Internet media of filming the presidential residence. He accused him of violating the Military Base and Military Facility Protection Act. Anyway, until now, the parts that are barbed wire or the buses are double or triple barbed wire have been exposed. Let's say, President Yoon is estimating right now.Some question whether Ma would have deliberately exposed himself if he were President Yoon.

[Park Won-seok]
If it was President Yoon, I think he exposed it today with this intention that he would block the spread of the rumor of escape. If the rumor of escape is true, the anti-impeachment protesters gathered in front of the official residence will collapse right away. How would it be seen by the supporters if they say the president ran away when they are holding an all-nighter rally to protect the president? Don't you think you'll run out of fraud? I don't think I would have fled because of that. However, there is a background in which that story spread. At the time of executing the first arrest warrant last time, the presidential protocol vehicle moved and the bodyguards were caught saluting it on video. That's probably why the rumor of refuge and escape came out. In addition, since I received a report from a military official that Ahn Kyu-baek talked about, the story spread today as it was quite reliable.Ma was the first to refute when the lawyers came out today, and I think it will die down as the video footage is released on the Internet media today. Last time, there were many different interpretations of how the security vehicle was moving, and the residence of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is nearby. There is a kind of panning room and escape room in the residence of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I don't think it will be easy. Because the Joint Chiefs of Staff cannot be under the direction of the President right now. If the Joint Chiefs of Staff opens the room and hides the president there, it is illegal, and even if the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a facility in the residence without the consent of the U.S., it is difficult to do so, so in reality, it is not very likely.

[Anchor]
In the midst of this, the interest now is when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which has been reissued the warrant, will execute it with the police and in what way, so how do you see it? There is a possibility that more people will now even mobilize equipment to enter. There are a lot of articles that are reviewing this right now.

[Choi Soo-young]
Looking at it now, a lot of people say it's a so-called siege. Since the official residence is on the mountain, military officials even use the expression "Gamjegoji" and military terminology. They even use the term that it's not easy to penetrate it because they look down from above. However, such talks have recently been circulating ahead of the issuance of an arrest warrant, and there is a possibility that interesting parts within the police may go to a long-term war. So what that means is that as we keep trying, the security guard relaxes a little, and then, one by one, overpowering people for a long time, and in the process, if there is a chief and a deputy chief, we will secure a recruit and destroy the command line to lower the morale. So, I don't think we're revealing the date right now, but last time it was the 7th. It seems to me that I received at least two weeks. If so, I will decide when to do it after consulting with the police within the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but that's probably the right time. As Rep. Park said, there seems to be a stir within the security office, and according to the report today, the 55th security guard outside the security office is under the command of the security office, but the original unit is under the command of the Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, right? As for that, there may be military guidelines not to cooperate in that case and not to cooperate with the outside guards. So I think I kind of went into psychological warfare. So, it seems that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is issuing a warrant and continuing to tell the media that it will do this and that without restrictions, agitating the psychological warfare between the security service and the so-called outer units. In any case, I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will do something about it because it is an attempt to arrest an arrest warrant with the fate of the organization, life or death. But I think that if there is a real armed conflict that we are concerned about, such an incident should not happen, so we should first preempt the process of finding a point of contact and then focus on physical force.

[Anchor]
Senator Park, how did you hear it?

[Park Won-seok]
In the end, the failure of the first arrest warrant execution last time was a lack of will. We didn't have enough preparation. There were a lot of comments about this, but yesterday, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit came to the National Assembly to apologize to the public and said, "I will do my best to get the second arrest warrant."Ma seems to have made a policy of preparing overwhelming physical strength and arresting him even if the security agency resists it. As critic Choi Soo-young said earlier, it seems that the military and the police have already established a policy to guard the outside, but not to mobilize the execution of arrest warrants. Then, it should be prevented only by the security agency's manpower, but this is not justified. There is a logical limit to the fact that the security service prevents the execution of warrants issued by the court based on the Security Act, and the head of the security service has sent a third request for attendance, but if he does not attend, there is a possibility that all of them will be subject to arrest. However, although the security law can prevent harm to the security target, there is no basis for preventing the parties to the security service from being arrested and entering to execute the warrant. If we stop it, I think from then on, the security service is not a public authority, but a kind of private armed group. Therefore, even if it takes time, I will break up that kind of resistance from the security service anyway. However, I think it is difficult for the security service to resist until the end. Those are not political positions appointed under the President Yoon's administration like the presidential secretariat staff, but general officials who have been working at the security service since the previous administration. However, if they resist law enforcement and are arrested for obstructing the execution of special public affairs or tried for it, they will face various disadvantages such as social disadvantages and pensions. Those individuals cannot afford it and there is no reason to afford it. Therefore, I know that the bodyguard is holding out because of the strong command line due to the nature of the organization, but if this condition is prolonged, there is already considerable agitation, and I think the bodyguard itself is likely to collapse. I understand that the police have also decided to enforce the law even if they are prepared for a long-term war, taking that into account.

[Anchor]
In the midst of this, the ruling party raised suspicions that the National Police Agency is actually illegally communicating with the Democratic Party of Korea. The beginning of the problem was Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Sang-sik's SNS post, so shall we take a look? What kind of SNS was it? This is what lawmaker Lee Sang-sik posted on his personal SNS. I've been very busy. The phone caught fire because it was acting as a messenger between our party and noodles. Then, since that became a problem, a revised article was posted without that part, and I checked later to find out what else was written between the articles, although the arrest warrant is about to be re-executed around the weekend. There was another one in the beginning, and this part was deleted in about 4 minutes. Lee Sang-sik, a member of the National Assembly, seems to have seen that there was some internal connection between the Democratic Party and the National Assembly.

[Choi Soo-young]
That's what the Democratic Party is talking about. In order for us to punish the illegality of martial law, then what should the Democratic Party do? We have to mobilize due process. That way, don't you have a justification afterwards? But it's like this logic that we also mobilize illegality to punish illegality. Lee Sang-sik is a very high-ranking lawmaker because he served as the deputy head of the injured local police agency. I'm from Chi-Sang-Gam. So there are juniors right now, and all the officials from Kook Soo-bon are candidates. But a senior is talking on the phone like this. What happens when someone who is an incumbent lawmaker and can control the police in the opposition party calls? You're actually under the direction. I don't know if he revealed his intentions, but it could be executed over the weekend. Anyway, Rep. Lee Sang-sik played the role of messenger as a lawmaker from a high-ranking police officer, doesn't this mean that he coordinated the story? It's very inappropriate. Because in order for us to have post-mortem justification for something, we have to value it very much. That's how you have legitimacy and everything about it has consent. However, if this is done, it would be illegal if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit could investigate the rebellion even if it is not now, and if the warrant request was proper or not, it would be illegal if opposition lawmakers and high-ranking police members communicated, discussed, and discussed about it. So even if it's executed later, how much of a headwind would this be? In that sense, this would be extremely inappropriate.

[Anchor]
He said that he was losing his legitimacy, and anyway, the power of the people is now scheduled to file a complaint against Representative Lee Sang-sik, the Democratic Party, and officials from the National Investigation Headquarters.

[Park Won-seok]
I think I said something very inappropriate and careless during a sensitive time. So, since Representative Lee Sang-sik is a high-ranking police officer, he can access more police investigation information and things like this relatively than other lawmakers, or he can grasp it a little faster. However, expressing yourself as a messenger, between Dang and Gukjubon, is a very inappropriate act, no matter what the facts are. As a result, I believe that he made such a careless comment that would undermine the legitimacy of the ongoing investigation. Of course, I don't think that the National Assembly received instructions from the Democratic Party through Representative Lee Sang-sik or delivered the investigation status to the Democratic Party through Representative Lee Sang-sik. I don't think the organization called the National Investigation Headquarters is that sloppy, and if that happens now, I can't handle it later. Therefore, it's a very sensitive time, so I'll be very careful on purpose, but lawmaker Lee Sang-sik wrote on social media to emphasize that he was busy, but in a way, he made careless and misleading expressions. I think we should just apologize and move on quickly.

[Anchor]
I filed a complaint with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency that I had an internal relationship with the police, but I'll see how they'll react. The National Assembly, I'm talking about the impeachment. There are various figurative expressions about the National Assembly's impeachment team withdrawing the criminal rebellion from the reason for the impeachment of President Yoon, and Yoon Gap-geun, a lawyer, said today. It's galbitang without ribs. In the meantime, there have been many metaphors. It's a steamed bun without a steamed bun. It's supposed to be steamed bun without Angkko, but it's not that. I used to say steamed bun without jajangmyeon, and short rib soup without ribs. Is that true?

[Choi Soo-young]
But I think we need to look at the original text of this impeachment. What the original text says is that President Yoon committed the crime of rebellion by mobilizing the government, the military and the police. That's why I specified that I'm going to file an impeachment. But I'm going to get rid of the crime of rebellion here. But of course, the Democratic Party only removes that crime, and it says that everything that's actually there is. But look. Anyway, after the impeachment motion, the presidential insurrection mob, the People's Insurrection Gong, the People's Insurrection Party, and the Prime Minister Han Duck-soo impeached the president as a rebellion Gong, and this time the acting president Choi Sang-mok was trying to impeach him again saying that he sympathized with the rebellion, but now he is in office. What is the point of removing this from this situation? I look at it like this. There are two aspects. The first is to see if the president has committed an unconstitutional or illegal act, and the second is to see if the degree of the act is enough to dismiss him from office, and illegality and unconstitutionality are already going to the track of an investigation. Then the court can cover it, but what we need to see is that we need a lot of circumstantial evidence to determine how serious the act is, but if you remove the crime of rebellion without looking at the circumstantial evidence, the court can see it sloppy. Then, it only covers unconstitutionality and illegality, and in my view, the problem may be that there may be efficiency, but it raises a question of procedural fairness afterwards. Then there could be a division of opinion. Even if it takes a little time, it's right to draw a conclusion that everyone can agree on, and is it right to use an expedient to go a little faster? I think it is right to go with the original text even if it is a little slow to prevent the division of public opinion.

[Anchor]
The withdrawal of the rebellion itself is not a problem, and as you just said, it provided such an excuse to raise the question of procedural legitimacy. It is true that there are quite a few stories like this.

[Park Won-seok]
Well, I don't know. It's just a force for President Yoon's lawyers to talk about something that doesn't make sense legally. In 2016, when former President Park Geun Hye was impeached, specific crimes, such as coercion and bribery, were excluded. The reason is that it is in line with the nature of the impeachment trial so that the impeachment trial can be conducted efficiently, and this is a violation of the Constitution and the seriousness of the crime, so I will not argue with the Constitution whether it is a criminal offense or not. even if the act itself is contested At that time, the head of the impeachment prosecution was Kwon Sung-dong. At that time, when the media raised the same question as now, Rep. Kwon Sung-dong answered the same question. The impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. Since this is a kind of administrative trial and a kind of disciplinary trial, the key is whether it violated the Constitution, and the reason for the prosecution was rearranged for that purpose. It's the same now. The reasons for the prosecution have been rearranged for a quick and efficient trial, and the criminal court will deal with whether or not the crime of rebellion has committed the crime of rebellion under the criminal law, and all such acts of rebellion specified in the reason for impeachment will be included. For example, for reasons that are not required, martial law was declared, the cabinet meeting was not properly deliberated, or the National Assembly was not notified, and martial law forces were mobilized to obstruct the proceedings of the National Assembly, issued an unconstitutional decree, filed an election committee, and everything went in. The reason why President Yoon's lawyers are using this force right now is to delay the impeachment trial even a little bit, to delay the early start of the presidential election, I think this is the intention.

[Anchor]
But whenever that story comes out, CEO Lee Jae-myung's judicial risk comes out. In order to do that, it seems that the purpose of turning the clock of the impeachment trial quickly is there. It continues to come down to that again. I see. Let's talk about the independent counsel law. We're back in the National Assembly. The Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act was rejected in a re-vote at the National Assembly plenary session today. In the process, the ruling party even publicly demanded Rep. Kim Sang-wook leave the party, so we will hear his remarks in person.

[Kwon Seong-dong / People's Power Floor Leader: I'm very sorry that I didn't follow the party line, and many lawmakers are expressing great dissatisfaction and questioning whether I think I can do the same party. Kim Sang-wook? (Kim Sang-wook) Regarding Rep. Kim Sang-wook, who did something against the party theory through broadcasting, media, and interviews, I recommended that he seriously consider leaving the party, saying that if it is difficult to be with the party theory, he cannot join the same party. ]

[Kim Sang-wook / People's Power: I have no intention of leaving the party. It is a bit embarrassing and embarrassing for me to publicly know that the party leadership said to leave the party because it was different from the party's theory. I think it's a kind of witch hunt and a kind of McCarthyism if you're just driven into that act and asked to leave the party just because the number of people who think that is small. ]

[Anchor]
First of all, as a result of the re-voting of the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act today, 198 votes out of 300 present were in favor. So, it was only two votes short of the passing quorum. The number of votes approved by one person increased compared to the original first vote. It didn't pass because it was two votes short.

[Choi Soo-young]
As time passes, the independent counsel for rebellion is basically seen as difficult to reject as time passes. Because there's an investigation going on with one track right now. On one track, the Constitutional Court is now reviewing impeachment, and various permanent special prosecutors have been passed.There are controversies over the lawfulness of investigative agencies because there are controversies over the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police and prosecution. Some within the ruling camp say that it would be better to go as an independent special prosecutor if we remove toxic clauses and remove such clauses and investigate indefinitely. That's why the special prosecutor, who has many toxic provisions and is not neutral, has only been rejected by two votes, so if this continues later. It can be reissued. But of course, he says he will go neutral and a third-party special prosecutor. However, as far as it is known, it is decided to go to a third-party special prosecutor, but it is possible to conduct unlimited investigations and various investigations. In addition to that, it seems that there is a little more room for negotiation because it will include foreign exchange crimes, but if it goes that way anyway, the people's power will not be able to defend until long. In this regard, the public's power is neutral to the independent independent independent special prosecutor and negotiates with the Democratic Party of Korea, including the third-party special prosecutor, to limit the guidelines of the investigation. I don't think it's a situation where we can only vote against the Democratic Party's proposal until when.

[Anchor]
What do you think, Senator Park? If the Democratic Party of Korea really reissue it tomorrow and removes the part where the power of the people is called the toxic clause, how do you see whether this will be negotiated or if we do it again next time, there will be more votes to leave?

[Park Won-seok]
I think it's hard to prevent the number of leave votes from increasing. People have criticized the law as unconstitutional because the public's power has taken issue with the right to recommend the independent counsel law, but if the contents of the bill are changed by a three-way recommendation method, will they negotiate or agree to it? I think that is still unknown. Because when the Marine Special Prosecutor Act was controversial at the National Assembly, former representative Han Dong-hoon suggested such an alternative. Let's start with a third-party recommendation. However, within the power of the people, they opposed it, starting with floor leader Choo Kyung-ho at the time. Therefore, even now, I don't really mean that I can discuss the independent counsel law, but I also think it's the intention to drag on even this. It is very inappropriate for floor leader Kwon Sung-dong to go to lawmaker Kim Sang-wook and recommend him to leave the party today. That's a kind of workplace bullying.

[Anchor]
So, I had an interview after the re-vote was over.Ma said that he said so in the plenary session before going into the re-vote.

[Park Won-seok]
That's what I'm saying. On the other hand, when it comes to lawmakers' votes, they have the responsibility and responsibility to act according to their conscience, not just by party opinions. Therefore, it is very inappropriate for a floor leader to make such threatening remarks to a first-term lawmaker on the grounds that he does not follow the party line by setting his position according to his conscience and conviction, and how can Kim Sang-wook leave the party here? Do you think I would be only a lawmaker who stands back against such violent forces within the party that force such a party even though I keep my conscience and conviction? I don't think it's easy. Rep. Kwon Sung-dong exerted such strong pressure on Rep. Kim Ye-ji to go and follow the party line, but what it shows is how unreasonable this party line is, and how hard it is to keep it, would the floor leader make such a threat while chasing the first-term lawmakers? Rather, I think changing such a wrong party line is what I need to do now.

[Anchor]
Is it referred to the party's ethics committee when it goes against the party's theory?

[Choi Soo-young]
To the ethics committee, it's not like that. There are cases where the ethics committee is demeaning or undermining the prestige of the party, and it's rarely referred to the ethics committee because it's against the party platform. So, as lawmaker Park said earlier, this is because it is supposed to be done in accordance with the conscience and belief guaranteed in the constitution of the National Assembly. But it doesn't make sense to refer it to the ethics committee. However, if you maintain your dignity or damage your party's reputation, you will be referred to the ethics committee.

[Anchor]
Why did you do this? Was it a recommendation or pressure? The inside of

[Choi Soo-young]
volume
should go to a single base. Since the impeachment hearing is underway, we should go with the party, I think there is pressure. Even so, in order for the ruling camp to have a healthy unified response, it should show respect for the diversity of the party and go together. I think it is not desirable in terms of the ruling party's strategy to do a kind of disciplinary politics and then to do subtraction politics. However, what Representative Kwon Sung-dong said today was this in detail.Rather than doing so, he said, "Why don't we leave the party if we're going to do so?" But I don't think it was appropriate for the floor leader's remarks because it could lead to a very political misunderstanding depending on the interpretation.

[Anchor]
But anyway, as you said earlier, I think I told Rep. Kim Ye-ji and Rep. Kim Sang-wook, and I told the lawmakers who publicly agreed. But rather, there was one more vote than the last vote.

[Choi Soo-young]
So in the end, it's an example of how this problem is not solved by building a kind of barrier and then building a breakwater. Therefore, I think that preemptively proposing a third-party special prosecutor that can pressure the Democratic Party of Korea and an independent and very neutral special prosecutor bill could be two ways for the people's power to take advantage of the benefits of protecting the party from a single confrontation.

[Anchor]
Finally, today, floor leader Kwon Sung-dong gave it to acting president Choi Sang-mok, and the vacancy asked him to actively exercise the appointment of the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Public Administration and Security, and to exercise his right to appoint him. I wonder if acting Choi Sang-mok will appoint this way, and I wonder why he made such a request at this point.

[Park Won-seok]
Kwon Sung-dong's request is very contradictory, saying, "Don't even appoint a person elected by the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court, because it's a change in the status quo, you can't do it as an acting president." He was the one who claimed that he was exercising even more personnel rights to the acting president, right? I keep saying and saying things that don't add up to me. I want to say this first. There have been previous acting officials who believed that the National Assembly had to agree on the opposition party in advance to exercise personnel rights.Ma has never exercised any kind of personnel rights. Of course, since there are many vacancies now, there is such a sense of problem as to how long this vacancy will be left unattended. Therefore, if the ruling and opposition parties seriously discuss and consult and ask the acting president to exercise his or her right to personnel affairs, I think the acting president can consider it. But that's not it, only the ruling party should exercise its personnel rights unilaterally. It doesn't make sense to ask the Constitutional Court not to appoint anyone elected by the National Assembly, even if it doesn't make sense to appoint a ministerial vacancy now, right?

[Anchor]
Anyway, the appointment is not done right away, but there is a hearing and the process.

[Choi Soo-young]
That's a statement made to show off the ruling party's status once. Acting Chief Choi Sang-mok said something meaningful not too long ago. Everyone, whether they are vice ministers or ministers, asked them to lead the ministry with the conviction and responsibility that they are acting in the field, so they said they would not accept it in advance.
So I think that's a performance that shows that we are the ruling party ahead of the launch of the National Council.

[Anchor]
There is no reality. I see. I'll stop listening to it. He was joined by political commentator Choi Soo-young and former Justice Party lawmaker Park Won-seok. Thank you both.