■ Host: anchor Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Starring: Jang Young-soo, professor of law at Korea University Law School, lawyer Yang Ji-min
* 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]
As the Joint Investigation Headquarters grapples with the timing and strategy of executing President Yoon's second arrest warrant, the timing and method are being outlined little by little. This morning, Presidential Security Service Chief Park Jong-joon appeared at the police to investigate the suspect. Today, we will be joined by Jang Young-soo, a professor at Korea University Law School, and Yang Ji-min, a lawyer.
There is also a great interest in when the second warrant will be executed and the validity period of the reissued warrant.
It's not officially confirmed, but if you look at the results of a number of reports right now, they're talking about it for two to three weeks. Isn't this quite a long period, professor? [Jang Young-soo] Usually, it's a week, so it can be seen as a long period, but if you look at the overall date, execute the warrant until the Lunar New Year. It means that much, and it seems that the court probably did not extend it first, so I think it was applied to that effect when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit applied. As you said, until the Lunar New Year's Day, it is expected that some conclusions will be made on the execution of arrest warrants, so the police are also preparing overwhelming manpower. There are even a specific number of about 1,000 people coming out.
[Jimin Yang]
He has no choice but to do so because, if you think carefully about the execution of the first warrant, there are aspects of the 3rd cordon that were blocked by manpower even though they actually penetrated the 1st cordon and 2nd cordon well. Of course, it was reported that about 200 people planned and blocked the scrum after blocking it with a car wall. At that time, 200 people blocked it with a car wall, and the Airborne Division may have judged that there were difficulties in executing it because the total number of personnel was 100 and fewer people entered the third cordon.
Most of all, the security and airlift agencies are working together. As a result, there are concerns that if you do something wrong, it could turn into an armed conflict. Therefore, in order not to go to armed conflict, there seems to be a possibility that we will put as many people as possible and go with a strategy of holding out. As a result, the special police force is known to have requested support, including the security investigation unit, the criminal investigation unit, the anti-corruption investigation unit, drug crimes, and the financial crime investigation unit.
If you estimate this number of people, it is said that about 1,000 people are expected. Not only the Seoul area, but also all four police agencies in the Seoul metropolitan area, including Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi-do, have received official letters. Therefore, if an arrest warrant is executed, it may not be enough for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or some manpower in Seoul, so the National Police Agency in the metropolitan area went to an official letter asking for active manpower input, which seems to be a strong idea that we will try to execute it this time by estimating about 1,000 people.
[Anchor]
We'll have to wait and see if everyone will be mobilized. Among them, he was very interested in criminal mobilization. What kind of group are you?
[Jimin Yang]
In the case of the criminal mobile unit, it is often said that it is a mobile unit that solves serious cases by crossing the boundaries of the jurisdiction. Since it is an organization under the direct control of the head of the local police agency, it seems that if the local police agency has any will, it can be used. First of all, there are about 200 people belonging to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency alone. Of course, it will be helped by other anti-corruption investigation teams and other investigation teams, but as the Criminal Investigation Unit is evaluated as having a lot of experience specializing in arrest and execution of warrants over such a long period of time, more than 200 members of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency are expected to be mobilized. In addition, there is a possibility that more manpower will be deployed in other regions. [Anchor] There was a claim that 1,000 police officers and a stronger physical force should execute an arrest warrant because there was resistance from the president in the first round. So there were even talks about police commandos and helicopters. Fortunately, this part has not been reviewed, but there must be some concerns about physical conflict, right?
[Jang Young-soo]
It's a legal issue. Because the official name of the police commando is anti-terrorism commando. In other words, the mission is set by law to put it in a terrorist case, but is this a terrorist case? This can raise the question of whether this is put in wrong. I'd like to point out two things in this regard, and one is physical conflict, which can make things very fluctuate. Some of it is still being said, but even after martial law troops were deployed in the emergency martial law, there were no casualties, and no one was hurt that much, but if you get hurt more while executing a presidential arrest warrant, there may be a question of whether this is right. The other one is connected to that, so hasn't the chief of security now appeared? And it's not that President Yoon can't do it at all, but if he meets certain conditions, I'll also attend. Is this a priority, or is it a priority to voluntarily attend according to the conditions? There will continue to be controversy over that.
[Anchor]
And it is said that the Ministry of National Defense will not send up to 500 military personnel in relation to the security of the presidential residence. In fact, wasn't this part controversial, too? Is it really right to put soldiers in service to block the execution of warrants, what is the legal basis for this?
[Jang Young-soo]
This is how we should look at that now. Mandatory service is, after all, most soldiers except professional soldiers. Then, for example, were there no soldiers who were mobilized for martial law in such compulsory service? I think the problem here is that soldiers are actually just following orders, and it's wrong to go by orders and hold the soldiers who put them into martial law accountable. Because the military organization itself is a top-down uniform. But for now, in the end, we will rather be out of the power struggle between President Yoon and the National Assembly at the Ministry of National Defense. This is more meaningful, which is legally impossible. I think it's hard to see it like that.
[Anchor]
If military personnel are eventually removed like this, the number of personnel available from the president's side and the security office will decrease. Then, from the perspective of the security agency, it is psychologically inferior in numbers, so I think that it will inevitably be atrophy.
[Jimin Yang]
That's the only way I can see it. The security service will also be monitoring and recognizing all the stories in the media. So, it seems that the police and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will be fully aware of how much manpower will be invested to carry out the operation in a cooperative system. So, there are even rumors that there will be about 1,000 people, so from the perspective of the security agency, if there is a manpower that can be accompanied by the 55th Guard under the defense, if there is something to operate the manpower, it will be efficient to carry out the operation. Although the Ministry of National Defense is the organization that is under the command and supervision of the Ministry of National Defense, it seems that it is not appropriate to put it in now because there is such a basis for not entrusting such work or denying the command system at the Ministry of National Defense level.
So, if that happens, the number of people who can operate from the perspective of the security service will inevitably decrease. Then, no matter how much you hit and block the barrier, it seems that you have no choice but to fully predict the possibility of breaking through the cordon. From the Ministry of National Defense's point of view, the initial deployment of the unit was under the command of the security office anyway, so if the security office mobilized personnel, it would be illegal. However, there has been a change in position since then, as such an act could be illegal if it is prevented from executing an arrest warrant, and if the investigative agency and the police illegally block it, they will be booked for obstructing the execution of special public affairs. As we actively expressed our intention to book, I think the Ministry of National Defense has changed its position because we need to consider the situation where ordinary soldiers can be booked and become ex-convicts.
[Anchor]
The police reportedly asked for identification of 26 members of the security service who were in the residence during the first round of execution, so if it is confirmed, they will also be booked, is this the policy? What do you think?
[Jimin Yang]
In the end, it seems to depend on the will of the investigative agency. When the first warrant was executed, there was evidence from the investigative agency. However, we revealed that no one was booked on that day. In other words, it seems that the act of collecting evidence was sufficiently carried out by taking video devices or devices that could contain the situation. However, as a result of analyzing the evidence, it seems that some people were actively scuffled or prevented, and some people who could be convicted of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. As a result, it seems that a request has been made to identify 26 employees of the security service.
So, from the standpoint of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which is the execution of warrants, we are trying to execute a legitimate warrant, but the security service blocks it. I think this is a crime of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. Therefore, it seems that they requested identity because they left the possibility of sufficient charges against the 26 people in question.
[Anchor]
That's why I think it's a situation where the security service staff can feel a lot of pressure on this part. On the other hand, about 40 members of the People's Power ran to the rally site in Hannam-dong, and even if Oh Dong-woon, the chief of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and a lawmaker present at the National Assembly yesterday, if they block the execution of the arrest warrant, they can be arrested on the spot. This was stated at the National Assembly yesterday. Let's watch the video together. As far as we know, lawmakers have immunity from arrest. By the way, are you saying that this is not the case in the current situation?
[Jang Young-soo]
When talking about non-arrest privilege under the constitution, it stipulates all except for current offenders. But the problem here is that it is possible to say that you are a red-handed criminal, or that the security service staff and soldiers mentioned earlier are talking about it under the premise that the execution of the warrant is legal. But now, President Yoon's side says this is an illegal execution of a warrant, and that's why we can't accept it, and continue to get it from the Central District Court, and I'll appear like this. Then there will be a fight over that part. For example, if it's a legitimate warrant, lawmakers are also open to claiming that it's a red card, but it's an inappropriate warrant.
[Anchor]
I'll ask the professor about this, too. As you said, the controversy continues over whether the warrant is legal or illegal. How do you think this part should be organized?
[Jang Young-soo]
In fact, there are three points that are controversial regarding the legality of the warrant. One is that under the Public Offices Act, the jurisdiction of the Central District Court was originally established, but why did it go to the Western District Court instead of the Central District Court? Why are you not sufficiently explaining the reason when you can go to it as an exception? And because of that, various suspicions have been reported a lot. Secondly, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the right to investigate rebellion in the first place. However, it is also inappropriate to step forward and do it this way. In this regard, not only the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit but also the prosecution has the right to investigate, so why does the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit continue to do so if the police come to the fore? And thirdly, the phrase excluding Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act stated in the warrant can exclude the validity of the law from the warrant. This is also wrong. Those three parts were those that could be filtered out while re-claiming the warrant. But it didn't do that. In that regard, I think it would be burdensome to say that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit removes suspicions from the public and executes warrants in the most reasonable way.
[Anchor]
Then, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not lead the related investigation, do you think there is a possibility that this problem will be solved?
[Jang Young-soo]
All three should be missing. So, a warrant is issued by the Central District Court, and the police lead the case, not the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is supported from behind. In fact, it's a joint investigation, but it doesn't seem to be working properly right now. At the end of the first warrant execution last time, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said it would be assigned to the police, but the police couldn't receive it. I did it like this, but what I said then is that I can't accept it because there is a legal problem. I even said
. Isn't it because there is no control tower? The cooperation is not working properly.
Those problems are also pointed out.
[Anchor]
In the midst of this, the police asked Park Jong-joon, the head of the bodyguard, to attend, and he responded to the third request for attendance today. Shall we clear up the charges first?
[Yang Jimin]
First of all, Director Park Jong-joon is charged with obstructing the execution of special public affairs. As you all know, when the first warrant was executed, the security service strongly blocked it, and of course, there will be employees of the security service who directly fight and block it, but in the end, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit judges that the head of the security service committed this crime with the intention of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. Therefore, he actively booked the police special team and asked for attendance the next day, but from the security chief's point of view, since the validity of the first warrant was still alive at that time, he expressed his intention not to attend because he did not know when he would come in to execute the arrest.
After that, there was one more request for attendance, and at that time, the security office hit a barrier like this. So it's difficult for me to be present at such a severe time. And the lawyers were not well established, and they said there was a problem with the appointment of a lawyer, so they did not attend. Then, in a surprise move, he expressed his position in response to the third request for attendance today. I also expressed my position that my attendance was only delayed due to the duty of being the chief of security and such practical reasons that no lawyer was appointed.
[Anchor]
We will continue our conversation after hearing the voice of Park Jong-joon, the head of the security department, who appeared at the police today. In the process of attending today, you expressed your position as the head of the security in front of the reporters very actively, what do you think the head of the security department's attendance today means?
[Jang Young-soo]
I think it has three meanings. First, I didn't do anything wrong, I'm proud. Secondly, just because I'm here, it's not going to be easy to make an emergency arrest. I can go back. I would have made that judgment. And this may be my personal guess, but the president can attend if it is right as the security chief is present. There may even have been such an intention to show this. I think so.
[Anchor]
Where did you expect the second meaning, that there will be no emergency arrest?
[Jang Young-soo]
The current situation, I think the worst is a bloody conflict. If that happens, it will probably put a huge political burden on the person who is first identified as the perpetrator. And because of the absence of the security chief, there was a bloody conflict on this side. To be honest, if that happens, for example, it's okay because the security chief went a little too far, but it happened because there was no security chief. In this way, there seems to be a risk of taking more responsibility even if there is a bloody conflict between the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police.
[Anchor]
As you heard just a moment ago, Secretary of Security Park Jong-joon said that he wanted the investigation process to be suitable for the current presidential status to proceed, but the opposition camp argued that there should be no sanctuary. Let's listen to the related remarks. [Anchor] Do you use handcuffs, but is there a regulation in that area?
[Jimin Yang]
There are no regulations. There's something like that. In the case of criminals who commit violent crimes, handcuffing is generally applied to the back, and although there may be these standards, how much respect will we give to the incumbent president when he or she is arrested? For example, it is difficult to say that there is a clear standard for which device such as handcuffs can be used. That's why when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit made his position at the beginning, he said, "We will carry it out in consideration of the status of the incumbent president." However, there was a situation where execution was not possible. That's why I'm not sure if I'm going to handcuff him or not. Or do you move in a vehicle provided by the security service or a vehicle provided by the airborne service? I also think these things could be a side issue.
For now, regardless of whether it is important to be handcuffed like that, the purpose of making an arrest and the purpose of making an arrest is to investigate, so I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can make various efforts to make the investigation as much as possible.
[Anchor]
The lawyer said it was an incidental matter regarding handcuffs, but in the recording I just heard, it felt like lawmaker Park Ji-won was emphasizing something about handcuffs. What did you think of that part, professor?
[Jang Young-soo]
What the lawyer just said is a legal point of view. But from a political point of view, it would be a little different. In other words, he is frankly not even the president for the opposition. I am the head of the group. What kind of courtesy do you give? It's based on this kind of psychology on the floor rather than a legal point of view. And on the other side, why does CEO Lee Jae-myung even say that he is presumed innocent after being convicted in the first trial, but this side confirms that he is the head of the rebellion without being convicted in the first trial? It's wrong to do it this way. This seems to be a situation where they are colliding with each other.
[Anchor]
First of all, Chief of Security Park Jong-joon and others have emerged as an important variable in the execution of President Yoon's arrest warrant. The professor mentioned it earlier. Director Park's emergency arrest must have come out because he is confident.
But what are the emergency arrest requirements?
[Jang Young-soo]
Emergency arrest does not respond when summoned normally. This is the most basic. Arrest and arrest are different. And arrest presupposes a long term imprisonment in a detention center, and arrest is a temporary recruitment and then release immediately if it is not going to lead to arrest. Concerns about escape and destruction of evidence are required to be arrested in such a way, but it is not just an emergency arrest. In that respect, I mean, what am I going to run away and destroy the evidence, and even if I can't arrest him and make an emergency arrest, it won't last long anyway.
[Anchor]
Director of Security Park Jong-joon responded to the police's request for attendance today. Breaking news just came in. Lee Kwang-woo, head of the bodyguard division of the bodyguard, is said to have not attended so far.
[Anchor]
I asked for attendance by 2 p.m. today. I summoned him, but he didn't attend. Therefore, it is currently expected that the head of the security headquarters Lee Kwang-woo will be asked to attend the third round at the National Assembly. Today, former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's lawyer held a press conference for some media. The investigation into the rebellion is a practical civil war led by political forces trying to remove President Yoon politically. Therefore, he argued that the investigation into the crime of rebellion is a rebellion. Please summarize what arguments you specifically made.
[Jimin Yang]
As you pointed out, the prosecution's indictment is just a wrong answer note that misstated the subject of the rebellion as the president of Yoon Suk Yeol. At the same time, he expressed his antipathy to the investigation into the rebellion. He argued that there were forces trying to remove President Yoon, and that the civil war was now caused by those forces. At the same time, he said that it was the result of collusion between the court and the investigative agency under the direction of certain political forces. At the same time, he pointed out that with the intention of a public opinion trial, these forces, which are trying to eliminate the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, are moving with the intention of a public opinion trial.
[Anchor]
And lawyer, the president's dozens of appearances in the prosecution's indictment mean that there is no evidence of former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's allegations, but I don't understand what this means in general. Do you think it's reasonable logic as a lawyer?
[Yang Jimin] It's hard to say that
is exactly right. Because if we think about the allegations we are currently receiving in the case of former Minister Kim Yong-hyun, it is big that he is now being accused of civil war, just like President Yoon, because he is a force that sympathizes with the civil war. In the process, there are aspects in which several people participated as virtually the same act, that is, some kind of accomplice, so it seems inevitable that President Yoon is mentioned several times while explaining former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's actions. When the ruling party and opposition parties compare each other, they often listen to Lee Jae-myung's story. Then, the name of CEO Lee Jae-myung is actually mentioned a lot when the investigation records or court sentences other director Yoo Dong-gyu or related people.
It's the opposite logic, and it's also explained by the logic that so many people participated in the crime.
Therefore, the name Yoon Seok-yeol has appeared several times while explaining the allegations against former Minister Kim Yong-hyun technically or arithmetically, and it seems that it is not a level to be approached like this. Perhaps the prosecution's position is represented by the prosecution's point of view of the prosecution, and if you think about it, in the end, the two can be viewed as joint actors and many of them are suspected of civil war that took place as joint actions, so I think President Yoon's name had to be mentioned several times in the process of explaining. It doesn't seem simple to say that it's simply because of a lack of evidence or because the investigation has been less published.
[Anchor]
Although it was a press conference by former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's lawyers, this is also a public opinion battle on the part of President Yoon, and this evaluation continues to emerge. Yesterday, the president's lawyers said at a foreign press conference that they had requested the Constitutional Court for a power dispute and an injunction to suspend the validity of the second arrest warrant. That's what I did in the first place. Is this legally valid, professor?
[Jang Young-soo]
I think it'll be a little difficult for me. What's at stake now is a conflict between authority and authority. It is true that the authority of the court, the authority to issue warrants, is a problem here. But what authority of the president did it violate? It's hard to say this. Rather, it seems possible to say that the issuance of a warrant has violated the president's basic rights as a citizen. If so, it's not a power dispute, but a constitutional petition. Isn't the point a little off in that regard? However, if you go to a constitutional petition here, according to the current Constitutional Court Act, the constitutional petition against the court's trial is excluded. That's why issuing a warrant is also a trial. So, there is no way to argue about it in a constitutional petition. Because of this, I think that we should twist it slightly and deliberately try it as a competency dispute trial.
[Anchor]
How do you interpret that intention?
[Jang Young-soo]
Even if I leave the other part aside, I have excluded the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act as a search warrant in the first arrest warrant, which is beyond the scope of the warrant. I agree on that point for now. But it's not a violation of the president's authority, but if it is, it's a violation of the authority of the law, the authority of the legislature, isn't it inappropriate for the president to raise this issue?
[Anchor]
If you look at the position of President Yoon's lawyers a little more, impure anti-state forces participating in such insurrection activities will have to take legal responsibility, arguing that the arrest of the president is a rebellion to break the constitutional order. There was a claim like this. The word "anti-state force" appears here, too, but it feels different from the language and words of a lawyer you usually encounter, right?
[Jimin Yang]
Because I think there's a big political flow. There will be legal messages from the lawyers during the press conference for two consecutive days, but if it is legally invested, it is right to argue according to legal procedures through the court, but holding a press conference like this itself seems to have a political meaning. Therefore, the messages from the lawyers themselves also explained legal procedures or illegal parts, but they are now arguing that the process of arresting or obtaining a warrant for the incumbent president is illegal. You're pointing out that such illegality is, after all, an act that is being committed by the insurgents trying to arrest President Yoon Suk Yeol. In such a situation, it seems clear that the message that is being thrown is not a legal language as such impure anti-state forces have to bear the responsibility. However, it seems that he sent a political message on behalf of President Yoon.
[Anchor]
And a press conference held at the National Assembly yesterday was another controversial one, and a so-called white bone group held a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Center. There must be a lot of people who remember this name. You know that, don't you? This is the name that appeared a lot at the rally.
[Jang Young-soo]
It was talked about a lot when I was in college.
[Anchor]
How did you see this situation? What are your views on yesterday's press conference?
[Jang Young-soo]
First of all, the first thing I felt about the generational difference was the white bone team in our time, and this was a symbol of evil. But what's wrong with the younger generation now calling us the white bone team? a difference in perception In the end, this seems to be the difference between those who have gone through those days and those who have not. Starting with the old political gang, the Baekgol-dan is organized into a special police organization that attacks protesters indiscriminately while wearing plain clothes. This is a symbol of military dictatorship, so to speak, but there was no one who could say this was the Baekgol-dan. But one thing to note is where did the name Baekgoldan come from? I don't know if they said we were Baekgoldan first, but I saw a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Center, and other people called us Baekgoldan. After all, who was the first person to name this white bone team and what was your intention? I think we need to consider that, too.
[Anchor]
Could there be a legal problem when considering that part?
[Jang Young-soo]
People don't know what's wrong with the white bone team, but if the person who put it maliciously put bad guys like that, it can be defamation or insult.
[Anchor]
It's the next issue. There is still a controversy over the withdrawal of the rebellion by the National Assembly's impeachment representatives. We are still not finding a point of contact, so please clear up the controversy so far.
[Jimin Yang]
At first, when the National Assembly voted for impeachment, it was included that President Yoon Suk Yeol's act of declaring emergency martial law constituted a rebellion. After that, it became an actual prosecution and the ball was handed over to the Constitutional Court. In the process of holding a hearing preparation period at the Constitutional Court and arranging the issues, we said we would exclude the issue of rebellion from the National Assembly's impeachment and exclude it from the reason for the prosecution. As a result, from the perspective of the people's power, some lawmakers openly say that if the charges of rebellion were removed, I would have voted differently when the National Assembly voted for impeachment. If so, wouldn't it violate the voting rights of lawmakers who can be regarded as individual constitutional institutions for impeachment? It is the position of the people's power to say that the Constitutional Court should not continue the process now, but that the National Assembly should point out the impeachment process from the beginning. However, the position of the National Assembly's impeachment trial is that the impeachment trial functions as a key reason for the constitutional trial, and in the case of reasons for impeachment. If so, the National Assembly's impeachment team argues that even if the crime of rebellion is established as a reason for the impeachment and the exclusion of that part, the actual act itself can lead the Constitutional Court proceedings because it remains unchanged, such as declaring emergency martial law. While talking about the case of former President Park Geun Hye in the past, while the Constitutional Court's judgment continued at that time, the crime of abuse of authority against former President Park Geun Hye was explicitly excluded. Therefore, except for this, if there is a reason that is sufficiently unconstitutional under the constitution, it is impeached. I mean, there's no logical problem.
In this regard, the People's Power side is firmly confronting that it is right to return the procedure to the original state because the former President Park Geun Hye's indictment agreed to exclude such reasons.
[Anchor]
Regarding this issue, there are many opinions that excluding the word "crime of rebellion" does not change the facts related to the suspicion of rebellion. I'm curious about the professor's opinion on this part.
[Jang Young-soo]
First of all, the Democratic Party said so, and there are various pros and cons about it. But the first thing to presuppose here is what the key part of the impeachment is, and it is practically impossible to re-decide at the National Assembly every time you add and subtract one or two minor things. But what is the essential and key part of this that needs to be re-decided? This is the first question. To turn this around, for example, if the prosecution committee member, Chung Chung-rae, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is not a member of the Democratic Party, but a member of the National Power, is it acceptable for the Democratic Party to take this out without consulting with the Democratic Party? These are the parts. In that regard, would people have been able to understand when the Democratic Party of Korea personally asked to remove the crime of rebellion led by the national force instead of the Democratic Party? Would the Democratic Party have been able to understand? I don't think so. In some cases, shouldn't we go through a re-decision by the National Assembly? This is one. Another thing that many people are talking about now is why did you take it out in the end? It's not certain because the Constitutional Court is still denying it.Let's take this out of the Constitutional Court because it takes too much time. Only then will the decision be made before the two judges retire in April.
Didn't the prosecution committee tell you that there was such a recommendation? Considering those things, what does it mean to remain the act of rebellion and to exclude the crime of rebellion? In other words, the decisive difference between talking about the act of rebellion under the Constitution and talking about the crime of rebellion under the Criminal Law is not excluded if you judge an act that appears only when you talk about years in criminal punishment, death penalty, life imprisonment or years in prison. In the end, it all goes in. In order to evaluate the act of rebellion, all the parties will be summoned to investigate, and all this time will go in, so let's leave the act alone and exclude criminal rebellion? I think this part is hard to understand. Finally, the most worrisome part is that if it is true that the Constitutional Court really did it with any intention, the political neutrality of the Constitutional Court is seriously suspected, and the aftermath, whether it is a citation or dismissal decision, can be huge. I hope it's not that. And I hope that the Constitutional Court will actively show that it is not.
[Anchor]
The Constitutional Court is strongly protesting that it never recommended it, but President Yoon's side insists that the impeachment itself should be dismissed. Is there any chance that the Constitutional Court will accept it?
[Jang Young-soo]
I don't think there's much of that. Because there can be controversy over the re-decision issue. However, it seems quite difficult to go to the extreme even though it may be dismissed in this state.
[Anchor]
The president's representatives say that the impeachment proceedings are too fast, but the Constitutional Court is not at all faster than the former presidents. That's what I'm claiming. It seems that the Constitutional Court's willingness to slow down continues, right?
[Jimin Yang]
From the Constitutional Court's point of view, as you mentioned, the expiration of the terms of the two judges on April 18 can be considered realistically, but the current president of Korea said that the decision to be impeached or not is a part of the country's interests. Comparing the past cases of former Presidents Roh Moo Hyun and Park Geun Hye, how long it took for the first argument to be initiated after the prosecution was approved, the case of former President Roh Moo Hyun was initiated 18 days after the filing, and the case of former President Park Geun Hye was initiated 25 days after the filing. In the case of Yoon Suk Yeol, however, it was initiated 31 days after the filing.
He said that it is true that we have the purpose of doing it quickly, but it is not too fast in comparison. In the case of President Yoon Suk Yeol's delegation, I think the longest hearing period of 180 days should be exhausted and used even in terms of defense rights. However, the Constitutional Court has not expressed its position on this, but in the case of former President Park Geun Hye, it took three months after the approval was cited. In the case of former President Roh Moo Hyun, it took two months. Looking at that, I think the Constitutional Court will also make a judgment with some equity or consideration.
[Anchor]
Earlier, the Constitutional Court said in a briefing that the entire court was discussing the issue of evidence capability and reasons for prosecution, and that the respondent submitted a power of attorney for the lawsuit on January 9. Yesterday, there was also an investigation record needed for the hearing of President Yoon's impeachment trial, so wouldn't it affect the outcome of the president's impeachment trial?
[Jang Young-soo]
There is an impact, but the core of the problem is that I think this is something the Constitutional Court should have been more cautious about. In the last 1st and 2nd hearing preparation days, he said that he did not apply to criminal proceedings and that he could not defend enough because it was a constitutional trial. But it directly conflicts with Article 40 of the Constitutional Court Act. And there was also an investigation record or something like that. You can apply the minutes of the National Assembly meeting, testifying at the National Assembly, and things like this, so there is no need to call all of them as witnesses. In terms of the right to cross-examine, in other words, I went there and talked about it, but there is a contradiction there.
It is necessary to point out that this testimony is not credible, but it does not give me that opportunity at all. It is quite controversial in this regard. Finally, the Constitutional Court admitted to the act of rebellion by accepting all professional evidence without strict evidence, but later on, it has no choice but to go to the court and be strict in criminal proceedings. If you are rejected for evidence and found innocent, you will find out about the civil war. What would you do with that? I think it is right for the Constitutional Court to carefully consider everything it needs to consider in order to prevent that from happening.
[Anchor]
And if you look at the situation in the National Assembly, the Democratic Party proposed again in a day regarding the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act. First of all, who recommends the special prosecutor candidate. This was a big problem. I changed what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recommended. Also, foreign exchange charges were included in the scope of the investigation.
[Yang Jimin]
That's right. The ruling party has revised the part that is pointed out as a toxic clause. Who designates the two independent counsel candidates that you pointed out? I changed it so that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can make a recommendation. In addition, it has also deleted the right to veto opposition candidates to re-recommend them. Nevertheless, the reason why I think it will not be easy to reach an agreement is that rebellion has been added. The scope of the investigation was specified in 11 ways, but since foreign exchange crimes are included in it, there is a position that this should be excluded from the perspective of the people's power, and the investigation manpower and investigation period have been reduced. The number of
personnel was originally 205, but it was reduced to 155, and the investigation period was 170 days, but it was proposed to reduce it by about 20 days to 150 days. First of all, the people's power is very opposed to the addition of the foreign exchange crime.
[Anchor]
Professor, what do you think about the part of the investigation that includes foreign exchange charges?
[Jang Young-soo]
The inclusion of foreign exchange crimes seems to be intended to include these parts, such as sending drones to North Korea or provoking provocations against the South. The problem was that there was talk about it, but there is nothing revealed about it at all, so I think it's too much to go to Tongmo. If so, how far will he go when he goes for general transfer? I think I put too much into this part. I don't know why the Democratic Party insists on this, but this is not the key. I don't really understand that part.
[Anchor]
We must continue to see if we can pass the revised Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act. So far, I have been with Jang Young-soo, a professor at Korea University Law School, and Yang Ji-min, a lawyer. 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: Jang Young-soo, professor of law at Korea University Law School, lawyer Yang Ji-min
* 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]
As the Joint Investigation Headquarters grapples with the timing and strategy of executing President Yoon's second arrest warrant, the timing and method are being outlined little by little. This morning, Presidential Security Service Chief Park Jong-joon appeared at the police to investigate the suspect. Today, we will be joined by Jang Young-soo, a professor at Korea University Law School, and Yang Ji-min, a lawyer.
There is also a great interest in when the second warrant will be executed and the validity period of the reissued warrant.
It's not officially confirmed, but if you look at the results of a number of reports right now, they're talking about it for two to three weeks. Isn't this quite a long period, professor? [Jang Young-soo] Usually, it's a week, so it can be seen as a long period, but if you look at the overall date, execute the warrant until the Lunar New Year. It means that much, and it seems that the court probably did not extend it first, so I think it was applied to that effect when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit applied. As you said, until the Lunar New Year's Day, it is expected that some conclusions will be made on the execution of arrest warrants, so the police are also preparing overwhelming manpower. There are even a specific number of about 1,000 people coming out.
[Jimin Yang]
He has no choice but to do so because, if you think carefully about the execution of the first warrant, there are aspects of the 3rd cordon that were blocked by manpower even though they actually penetrated the 1st cordon and 2nd cordon well. Of course, it was reported that about 200 people planned and blocked the scrum after blocking it with a car wall. At that time, 200 people blocked it with a car wall, and the Airborne Division may have judged that there were difficulties in executing it because the total number of personnel was 100 and fewer people entered the third cordon.
Most of all, the security and airlift agencies are working together. As a result, there are concerns that if you do something wrong, it could turn into an armed conflict. Therefore, in order not to go to armed conflict, there seems to be a possibility that we will put as many people as possible and go with a strategy of holding out. As a result, the special police force is known to have requested support, including the security investigation unit, the criminal investigation unit, the anti-corruption investigation unit, drug crimes, and the financial crime investigation unit.
If you estimate this number of people, it is said that about 1,000 people are expected. Not only the Seoul area, but also all four police agencies in the Seoul metropolitan area, including Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi-do, have received official letters. Therefore, if an arrest warrant is executed, it may not be enough for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or some manpower in Seoul, so the National Police Agency in the metropolitan area went to an official letter asking for active manpower input, which seems to be a strong idea that we will try to execute it this time by estimating about 1,000 people.
[Anchor]
We'll have to wait and see if everyone will be mobilized. Among them, he was very interested in criminal mobilization. What kind of group are you?
[Jimin Yang]
In the case of the criminal mobile unit, it is often said that it is a mobile unit that solves serious cases by crossing the boundaries of the jurisdiction. Since it is an organization under the direct control of the head of the local police agency, it seems that if the local police agency has any will, it can be used. First of all, there are about 200 people belonging to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency alone. Of course, it will be helped by other anti-corruption investigation teams and other investigation teams, but as the Criminal Investigation Unit is evaluated as having a lot of experience specializing in arrest and execution of warrants over such a long period of time, more than 200 members of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency are expected to be mobilized. In addition, there is a possibility that more manpower will be deployed in other regions. [Anchor] There was a claim that 1,000 police officers and a stronger physical force should execute an arrest warrant because there was resistance from the president in the first round. So there were even talks about police commandos and helicopters. Fortunately, this part has not been reviewed, but there must be some concerns about physical conflict, right?
[Jang Young-soo]
It's a legal issue. Because the official name of the police commando is anti-terrorism commando. In other words, the mission is set by law to put it in a terrorist case, but is this a terrorist case? This can raise the question of whether this is put in wrong. I'd like to point out two things in this regard, and one is physical conflict, which can make things very fluctuate. Some of it is still being said, but even after martial law troops were deployed in the emergency martial law, there were no casualties, and no one was hurt that much, but if you get hurt more while executing a presidential arrest warrant, there may be a question of whether this is right. The other one is connected to that, so hasn't the chief of security now appeared? And it's not that President Yoon can't do it at all, but if he meets certain conditions, I'll also attend. Is this a priority, or is it a priority to voluntarily attend according to the conditions? There will continue to be controversy over that.
[Anchor]
And it is said that the Ministry of National Defense will not send up to 500 military personnel in relation to the security of the presidential residence. In fact, wasn't this part controversial, too? Is it really right to put soldiers in service to block the execution of warrants, what is the legal basis for this?
[Jang Young-soo]
This is how we should look at that now. Mandatory service is, after all, most soldiers except professional soldiers. Then, for example, were there no soldiers who were mobilized for martial law in such compulsory service? I think the problem here is that soldiers are actually just following orders, and it's wrong to go by orders and hold the soldiers who put them into martial law accountable. Because the military organization itself is a top-down uniform. But for now, in the end, we will rather be out of the power struggle between President Yoon and the National Assembly at the Ministry of National Defense. This is more meaningful, which is legally impossible. I think it's hard to see it like that.
[Anchor]
If military personnel are eventually removed like this, the number of personnel available from the president's side and the security office will decrease. Then, from the perspective of the security agency, it is psychologically inferior in numbers, so I think that it will inevitably be atrophy.
[Jimin Yang]
That's the only way I can see it. The security service will also be monitoring and recognizing all the stories in the media. So, it seems that the police and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will be fully aware of how much manpower will be invested to carry out the operation in a cooperative system. So, there are even rumors that there will be about 1,000 people, so from the perspective of the security agency, if there is a manpower that can be accompanied by the 55th Guard under the defense, if there is something to operate the manpower, it will be efficient to carry out the operation. Although the Ministry of National Defense is the organization that is under the command and supervision of the Ministry of National Defense, it seems that it is not appropriate to put it in now because there is such a basis for not entrusting such work or denying the command system at the Ministry of National Defense level.
So, if that happens, the number of people who can operate from the perspective of the security service will inevitably decrease. Then, no matter how much you hit and block the barrier, it seems that you have no choice but to fully predict the possibility of breaking through the cordon. From the Ministry of National Defense's point of view, the initial deployment of the unit was under the command of the security office anyway, so if the security office mobilized personnel, it would be illegal. However, there has been a change in position since then, as such an act could be illegal if it is prevented from executing an arrest warrant, and if the investigative agency and the police illegally block it, they will be booked for obstructing the execution of special public affairs. As we actively expressed our intention to book, I think the Ministry of National Defense has changed its position because we need to consider the situation where ordinary soldiers can be booked and become ex-convicts.
[Anchor]
The police reportedly asked for identification of 26 members of the security service who were in the residence during the first round of execution, so if it is confirmed, they will also be booked, is this the policy? What do you think?
[Jimin Yang]
In the end, it seems to depend on the will of the investigative agency. When the first warrant was executed, there was evidence from the investigative agency. However, we revealed that no one was booked on that day. In other words, it seems that the act of collecting evidence was sufficiently carried out by taking video devices or devices that could contain the situation. However, as a result of analyzing the evidence, it seems that some people were actively scuffled or prevented, and some people who could be convicted of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. As a result, it seems that a request has been made to identify 26 employees of the security service.
So, from the standpoint of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which is the execution of warrants, we are trying to execute a legitimate warrant, but the security service blocks it. I think this is a crime of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. Therefore, it seems that they requested identity because they left the possibility of sufficient charges against the 26 people in question.
[Anchor]
That's why I think it's a situation where the security service staff can feel a lot of pressure on this part. On the other hand, about 40 members of the People's Power ran to the rally site in Hannam-dong, and even if Oh Dong-woon, the chief of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and a lawmaker present at the National Assembly yesterday, if they block the execution of the arrest warrant, they can be arrested on the spot. This was stated at the National Assembly yesterday. Let's watch the video together. As far as we know, lawmakers have immunity from arrest. By the way, are you saying that this is not the case in the current situation?
[Jang Young-soo]
When talking about non-arrest privilege under the constitution, it stipulates all except for current offenders. But the problem here is that it is possible to say that you are a red-handed criminal, or that the security service staff and soldiers mentioned earlier are talking about it under the premise that the execution of the warrant is legal. But now, President Yoon's side says this is an illegal execution of a warrant, and that's why we can't accept it, and continue to get it from the Central District Court, and I'll appear like this. Then there will be a fight over that part. For example, if it's a legitimate warrant, lawmakers are also open to claiming that it's a red card, but it's an inappropriate warrant.
[Anchor]
I'll ask the professor about this, too. As you said, the controversy continues over whether the warrant is legal or illegal. How do you think this part should be organized?
[Jang Young-soo]
In fact, there are three points that are controversial regarding the legality of the warrant. One is that under the Public Offices Act, the jurisdiction of the Central District Court was originally established, but why did it go to the Western District Court instead of the Central District Court? Why are you not sufficiently explaining the reason when you can go to it as an exception? And because of that, various suspicions have been reported a lot. Secondly, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the right to investigate rebellion in the first place. However, it is also inappropriate to step forward and do it this way. In this regard, not only the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit but also the prosecution has the right to investigate, so why does the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit continue to do so if the police come to the fore? And thirdly, the phrase excluding Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act stated in the warrant can exclude the validity of the law from the warrant. This is also wrong. Those three parts were those that could be filtered out while re-claiming the warrant. But it didn't do that. In that regard, I think it would be burdensome to say that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit removes suspicions from the public and executes warrants in the most reasonable way.
[Anchor]
Then, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not lead the related investigation, do you think there is a possibility that this problem will be solved?
[Jang Young-soo]
All three should be missing. So, a warrant is issued by the Central District Court, and the police lead the case, not the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is supported from behind. In fact, it's a joint investigation, but it doesn't seem to be working properly right now. At the end of the first warrant execution last time, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said it would be assigned to the police, but the police couldn't receive it. I did it like this, but what I said then is that I can't accept it because there is a legal problem. I even said
. Isn't it because there is no control tower? The cooperation is not working properly.
Those problems are also pointed out.
[Anchor]
In the midst of this, the police asked Park Jong-joon, the head of the bodyguard, to attend, and he responded to the third request for attendance today. Shall we clear up the charges first?
[Yang Jimin]
First of all, Director Park Jong-joon is charged with obstructing the execution of special public affairs. As you all know, when the first warrant was executed, the security service strongly blocked it, and of course, there will be employees of the security service who directly fight and block it, but in the end, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit judges that the head of the security service committed this crime with the intention of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. Therefore, he actively booked the police special team and asked for attendance the next day, but from the security chief's point of view, since the validity of the first warrant was still alive at that time, he expressed his intention not to attend because he did not know when he would come in to execute the arrest.
After that, there was one more request for attendance, and at that time, the security office hit a barrier like this. So it's difficult for me to be present at such a severe time. And the lawyers were not well established, and they said there was a problem with the appointment of a lawyer, so they did not attend. Then, in a surprise move, he expressed his position in response to the third request for attendance today. I also expressed my position that my attendance was only delayed due to the duty of being the chief of security and such practical reasons that no lawyer was appointed.
[Anchor]
We will continue our conversation after hearing the voice of Park Jong-joon, the head of the security department, who appeared at the police today. In the process of attending today, you expressed your position as the head of the security in front of the reporters very actively, what do you think the head of the security department's attendance today means?
[Jang Young-soo]
I think it has three meanings. First, I didn't do anything wrong, I'm proud. Secondly, just because I'm here, it's not going to be easy to make an emergency arrest. I can go back. I would have made that judgment. And this may be my personal guess, but the president can attend if it is right as the security chief is present. There may even have been such an intention to show this. I think so.
[Anchor]
Where did you expect the second meaning, that there will be no emergency arrest?
[Jang Young-soo]
The current situation, I think the worst is a bloody conflict. If that happens, it will probably put a huge political burden on the person who is first identified as the perpetrator. And because of the absence of the security chief, there was a bloody conflict on this side. To be honest, if that happens, for example, it's okay because the security chief went a little too far, but it happened because there was no security chief. In this way, there seems to be a risk of taking more responsibility even if there is a bloody conflict between the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police.
[Anchor]
As you heard just a moment ago, Secretary of Security Park Jong-joon said that he wanted the investigation process to be suitable for the current presidential status to proceed, but the opposition camp argued that there should be no sanctuary. Let's listen to the related remarks. [Anchor] Do you use handcuffs, but is there a regulation in that area?
[Jimin Yang]
There are no regulations. There's something like that. In the case of criminals who commit violent crimes, handcuffing is generally applied to the back, and although there may be these standards, how much respect will we give to the incumbent president when he or she is arrested? For example, it is difficult to say that there is a clear standard for which device such as handcuffs can be used. That's why when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit made his position at the beginning, he said, "We will carry it out in consideration of the status of the incumbent president." However, there was a situation where execution was not possible. That's why I'm not sure if I'm going to handcuff him or not. Or do you move in a vehicle provided by the security service or a vehicle provided by the airborne service? I also think these things could be a side issue.
For now, regardless of whether it is important to be handcuffed like that, the purpose of making an arrest and the purpose of making an arrest is to investigate, so I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can make various efforts to make the investigation as much as possible.
[Anchor]
The lawyer said it was an incidental matter regarding handcuffs, but in the recording I just heard, it felt like lawmaker Park Ji-won was emphasizing something about handcuffs. What did you think of that part, professor?
[Jang Young-soo]
What the lawyer just said is a legal point of view. But from a political point of view, it would be a little different. In other words, he is frankly not even the president for the opposition. I am the head of the group. What kind of courtesy do you give? It's based on this kind of psychology on the floor rather than a legal point of view. And on the other side, why does CEO Lee Jae-myung even say that he is presumed innocent after being convicted in the first trial, but this side confirms that he is the head of the rebellion without being convicted in the first trial? It's wrong to do it this way. This seems to be a situation where they are colliding with each other.
[Anchor]
First of all, Chief of Security Park Jong-joon and others have emerged as an important variable in the execution of President Yoon's arrest warrant. The professor mentioned it earlier. Director Park's emergency arrest must have come out because he is confident.
But what are the emergency arrest requirements?
[Jang Young-soo]
Emergency arrest does not respond when summoned normally. This is the most basic. Arrest and arrest are different. And arrest presupposes a long term imprisonment in a detention center, and arrest is a temporary recruitment and then release immediately if it is not going to lead to arrest. Concerns about escape and destruction of evidence are required to be arrested in such a way, but it is not just an emergency arrest. In that respect, I mean, what am I going to run away and destroy the evidence, and even if I can't arrest him and make an emergency arrest, it won't last long anyway.
[Anchor]
Director of Security Park Jong-joon responded to the police's request for attendance today. Breaking news just came in. Lee Kwang-woo, head of the bodyguard division of the bodyguard, is said to have not attended so far.
[Anchor]
I asked for attendance by 2 p.m. today. I summoned him, but he didn't attend. Therefore, it is currently expected that the head of the security headquarters Lee Kwang-woo will be asked to attend the third round at the National Assembly. Today, former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's lawyer held a press conference for some media. The investigation into the rebellion is a practical civil war led by political forces trying to remove President Yoon politically. Therefore, he argued that the investigation into the crime of rebellion is a rebellion. Please summarize what arguments you specifically made.
[Jimin Yang]
As you pointed out, the prosecution's indictment is just a wrong answer note that misstated the subject of the rebellion as the president of Yoon Suk Yeol. At the same time, he expressed his antipathy to the investigation into the rebellion. He argued that there were forces trying to remove President Yoon, and that the civil war was now caused by those forces. At the same time, he said that it was the result of collusion between the court and the investigative agency under the direction of certain political forces. At the same time, he pointed out that with the intention of a public opinion trial, these forces, which are trying to eliminate the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, are moving with the intention of a public opinion trial.
[Anchor]
And lawyer, the president's dozens of appearances in the prosecution's indictment mean that there is no evidence of former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's allegations, but I don't understand what this means in general. Do you think it's reasonable logic as a lawyer?
[Yang Jimin] It's hard to say that
is exactly right. Because if we think about the allegations we are currently receiving in the case of former Minister Kim Yong-hyun, it is big that he is now being accused of civil war, just like President Yoon, because he is a force that sympathizes with the civil war. In the process, there are aspects in which several people participated as virtually the same act, that is, some kind of accomplice, so it seems inevitable that President Yoon is mentioned several times while explaining former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's actions. When the ruling party and opposition parties compare each other, they often listen to Lee Jae-myung's story. Then, the name of CEO Lee Jae-myung is actually mentioned a lot when the investigation records or court sentences other director Yoo Dong-gyu or related people.
It's the opposite logic, and it's also explained by the logic that so many people participated in the crime.
Therefore, the name Yoon Seok-yeol has appeared several times while explaining the allegations against former Minister Kim Yong-hyun technically or arithmetically, and it seems that it is not a level to be approached like this. Perhaps the prosecution's position is represented by the prosecution's point of view of the prosecution, and if you think about it, in the end, the two can be viewed as joint actors and many of them are suspected of civil war that took place as joint actions, so I think President Yoon's name had to be mentioned several times in the process of explaining. It doesn't seem simple to say that it's simply because of a lack of evidence or because the investigation has been less published.
[Anchor]
Although it was a press conference by former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's lawyers, this is also a public opinion battle on the part of President Yoon, and this evaluation continues to emerge. Yesterday, the president's lawyers said at a foreign press conference that they had requested the Constitutional Court for a power dispute and an injunction to suspend the validity of the second arrest warrant. That's what I did in the first place. Is this legally valid, professor?
[Jang Young-soo]
I think it'll be a little difficult for me. What's at stake now is a conflict between authority and authority. It is true that the authority of the court, the authority to issue warrants, is a problem here. But what authority of the president did it violate? It's hard to say this. Rather, it seems possible to say that the issuance of a warrant has violated the president's basic rights as a citizen. If so, it's not a power dispute, but a constitutional petition. Isn't the point a little off in that regard? However, if you go to a constitutional petition here, according to the current Constitutional Court Act, the constitutional petition against the court's trial is excluded. That's why issuing a warrant is also a trial. So, there is no way to argue about it in a constitutional petition. Because of this, I think that we should twist it slightly and deliberately try it as a competency dispute trial.
[Anchor]
How do you interpret that intention?
[Jang Young-soo]
Even if I leave the other part aside, I have excluded the application of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act as a search warrant in the first arrest warrant, which is beyond the scope of the warrant. I agree on that point for now. But it's not a violation of the president's authority, but if it is, it's a violation of the authority of the law, the authority of the legislature, isn't it inappropriate for the president to raise this issue?
[Anchor]
If you look at the position of President Yoon's lawyers a little more, impure anti-state forces participating in such insurrection activities will have to take legal responsibility, arguing that the arrest of the president is a rebellion to break the constitutional order. There was a claim like this. The word "anti-state force" appears here, too, but it feels different from the language and words of a lawyer you usually encounter, right?
[Jimin Yang]
Because I think there's a big political flow. There will be legal messages from the lawyers during the press conference for two consecutive days, but if it is legally invested, it is right to argue according to legal procedures through the court, but holding a press conference like this itself seems to have a political meaning. Therefore, the messages from the lawyers themselves also explained legal procedures or illegal parts, but they are now arguing that the process of arresting or obtaining a warrant for the incumbent president is illegal. You're pointing out that such illegality is, after all, an act that is being committed by the insurgents trying to arrest President Yoon Suk Yeol. In such a situation, it seems clear that the message that is being thrown is not a legal language as such impure anti-state forces have to bear the responsibility. However, it seems that he sent a political message on behalf of President Yoon.
[Anchor]
And a press conference held at the National Assembly yesterday was another controversial one, and a so-called white bone group held a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Center. There must be a lot of people who remember this name. You know that, don't you? This is the name that appeared a lot at the rally.
[Jang Young-soo]
It was talked about a lot when I was in college.
[Anchor]
How did you see this situation? What are your views on yesterday's press conference?
[Jang Young-soo]
First of all, the first thing I felt about the generational difference was the white bone team in our time, and this was a symbol of evil. But what's wrong with the younger generation now calling us the white bone team? a difference in perception In the end, this seems to be the difference between those who have gone through those days and those who have not. Starting with the old political gang, the Baekgol-dan is organized into a special police organization that attacks protesters indiscriminately while wearing plain clothes. This is a symbol of military dictatorship, so to speak, but there was no one who could say this was the Baekgol-dan. But one thing to note is where did the name Baekgoldan come from? I don't know if they said we were Baekgoldan first, but I saw a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Center, and other people called us Baekgoldan. After all, who was the first person to name this white bone team and what was your intention? I think we need to consider that, too.
[Anchor]
Could there be a legal problem when considering that part?
[Jang Young-soo]
People don't know what's wrong with the white bone team, but if the person who put it maliciously put bad guys like that, it can be defamation or insult.
[Anchor]
It's the next issue. There is still a controversy over the withdrawal of the rebellion by the National Assembly's impeachment representatives. We are still not finding a point of contact, so please clear up the controversy so far.
[Jimin Yang]
At first, when the National Assembly voted for impeachment, it was included that President Yoon Suk Yeol's act of declaring emergency martial law constituted a rebellion. After that, it became an actual prosecution and the ball was handed over to the Constitutional Court. In the process of holding a hearing preparation period at the Constitutional Court and arranging the issues, we said we would exclude the issue of rebellion from the National Assembly's impeachment and exclude it from the reason for the prosecution. As a result, from the perspective of the people's power, some lawmakers openly say that if the charges of rebellion were removed, I would have voted differently when the National Assembly voted for impeachment. If so, wouldn't it violate the voting rights of lawmakers who can be regarded as individual constitutional institutions for impeachment? It is the position of the people's power to say that the Constitutional Court should not continue the process now, but that the National Assembly should point out the impeachment process from the beginning. However, the position of the National Assembly's impeachment trial is that the impeachment trial functions as a key reason for the constitutional trial, and in the case of reasons for impeachment. If so, the National Assembly's impeachment team argues that even if the crime of rebellion is established as a reason for the impeachment and the exclusion of that part, the actual act itself can lead the Constitutional Court proceedings because it remains unchanged, such as declaring emergency martial law. While talking about the case of former President Park Geun Hye in the past, while the Constitutional Court's judgment continued at that time, the crime of abuse of authority against former President Park Geun Hye was explicitly excluded. Therefore, except for this, if there is a reason that is sufficiently unconstitutional under the constitution, it is impeached. I mean, there's no logical problem.
In this regard, the People's Power side is firmly confronting that it is right to return the procedure to the original state because the former President Park Geun Hye's indictment agreed to exclude such reasons.
[Anchor]
Regarding this issue, there are many opinions that excluding the word "crime of rebellion" does not change the facts related to the suspicion of rebellion. I'm curious about the professor's opinion on this part.
[Jang Young-soo]
First of all, the Democratic Party said so, and there are various pros and cons about it. But the first thing to presuppose here is what the key part of the impeachment is, and it is practically impossible to re-decide at the National Assembly every time you add and subtract one or two minor things. But what is the essential and key part of this that needs to be re-decided? This is the first question. To turn this around, for example, if the prosecution committee member, Chung Chung-rae, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is not a member of the Democratic Party, but a member of the National Power, is it acceptable for the Democratic Party to take this out without consulting with the Democratic Party? These are the parts. In that regard, would people have been able to understand when the Democratic Party of Korea personally asked to remove the crime of rebellion led by the national force instead of the Democratic Party? Would the Democratic Party have been able to understand? I don't think so. In some cases, shouldn't we go through a re-decision by the National Assembly? This is one. Another thing that many people are talking about now is why did you take it out in the end? It's not certain because the Constitutional Court is still denying it.Let's take this out of the Constitutional Court because it takes too much time. Only then will the decision be made before the two judges retire in April.
Didn't the prosecution committee tell you that there was such a recommendation? Considering those things, what does it mean to remain the act of rebellion and to exclude the crime of rebellion? In other words, the decisive difference between talking about the act of rebellion under the Constitution and talking about the crime of rebellion under the Criminal Law is not excluded if you judge an act that appears only when you talk about years in criminal punishment, death penalty, life imprisonment or years in prison. In the end, it all goes in. In order to evaluate the act of rebellion, all the parties will be summoned to investigate, and all this time will go in, so let's leave the act alone and exclude criminal rebellion? I think this part is hard to understand. Finally, the most worrisome part is that if it is true that the Constitutional Court really did it with any intention, the political neutrality of the Constitutional Court is seriously suspected, and the aftermath, whether it is a citation or dismissal decision, can be huge. I hope it's not that. And I hope that the Constitutional Court will actively show that it is not.
[Anchor]
The Constitutional Court is strongly protesting that it never recommended it, but President Yoon's side insists that the impeachment itself should be dismissed. Is there any chance that the Constitutional Court will accept it?
[Jang Young-soo]
I don't think there's much of that. Because there can be controversy over the re-decision issue. However, it seems quite difficult to go to the extreme even though it may be dismissed in this state.
[Anchor]
The president's representatives say that the impeachment proceedings are too fast, but the Constitutional Court is not at all faster than the former presidents. That's what I'm claiming. It seems that the Constitutional Court's willingness to slow down continues, right?
[Jimin Yang]
From the Constitutional Court's point of view, as you mentioned, the expiration of the terms of the two judges on April 18 can be considered realistically, but the current president of Korea said that the decision to be impeached or not is a part of the country's interests. Comparing the past cases of former Presidents Roh Moo Hyun and Park Geun Hye, how long it took for the first argument to be initiated after the prosecution was approved, the case of former President Roh Moo Hyun was initiated 18 days after the filing, and the case of former President Park Geun Hye was initiated 25 days after the filing. In the case of Yoon Suk Yeol, however, it was initiated 31 days after the filing.
He said that it is true that we have the purpose of doing it quickly, but it is not too fast in comparison. In the case of President Yoon Suk Yeol's delegation, I think the longest hearing period of 180 days should be exhausted and used even in terms of defense rights. However, the Constitutional Court has not expressed its position on this, but in the case of former President Park Geun Hye, it took three months after the approval was cited. In the case of former President Roh Moo Hyun, it took two months. Looking at that, I think the Constitutional Court will also make a judgment with some equity or consideration.
[Anchor]
Earlier, the Constitutional Court said in a briefing that the entire court was discussing the issue of evidence capability and reasons for prosecution, and that the respondent submitted a power of attorney for the lawsuit on January 9. Yesterday, there was also an investigation record needed for the hearing of President Yoon's impeachment trial, so wouldn't it affect the outcome of the president's impeachment trial?
[Jang Young-soo]
There is an impact, but the core of the problem is that I think this is something the Constitutional Court should have been more cautious about. In the last 1st and 2nd hearing preparation days, he said that he did not apply to criminal proceedings and that he could not defend enough because it was a constitutional trial. But it directly conflicts with Article 40 of the Constitutional Court Act. And there was also an investigation record or something like that. You can apply the minutes of the National Assembly meeting, testifying at the National Assembly, and things like this, so there is no need to call all of them as witnesses. In terms of the right to cross-examine, in other words, I went there and talked about it, but there is a contradiction there.
It is necessary to point out that this testimony is not credible, but it does not give me that opportunity at all. It is quite controversial in this regard. Finally, the Constitutional Court admitted to the act of rebellion by accepting all professional evidence without strict evidence, but later on, it has no choice but to go to the court and be strict in criminal proceedings. If you are rejected for evidence and found innocent, you will find out about the civil war. What would you do with that? I think it is right for the Constitutional Court to carefully consider everything it needs to consider in order to prevent that from happening.
[Anchor]
And if you look at the situation in the National Assembly, the Democratic Party proposed again in a day regarding the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act. First of all, who recommends the special prosecutor candidate. This was a big problem. I changed what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recommended. Also, foreign exchange charges were included in the scope of the investigation.
[Yang Jimin]
That's right. The ruling party has revised the part that is pointed out as a toxic clause. Who designates the two independent counsel candidates that you pointed out? I changed it so that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can make a recommendation. In addition, it has also deleted the right to veto opposition candidates to re-recommend them. Nevertheless, the reason why I think it will not be easy to reach an agreement is that rebellion has been added. The scope of the investigation was specified in 11 ways, but since foreign exchange crimes are included in it, there is a position that this should be excluded from the perspective of the people's power, and the investigation manpower and investigation period have been reduced. The number of
personnel was originally 205, but it was reduced to 155, and the investigation period was 170 days, but it was proposed to reduce it by about 20 days to 150 days. First of all, the people's power is very opposed to the addition of the foreign exchange crime.
[Anchor]
Professor, what do you think about the part of the investigation that includes foreign exchange charges?
[Jang Young-soo]
The inclusion of foreign exchange crimes seems to be intended to include these parts, such as sending drones to North Korea or provoking provocations against the South. The problem was that there was talk about it, but there is nothing revealed about it at all, so I think it's too much to go to Tongmo. If so, how far will he go when he goes for general transfer? I think I put too much into this part. I don't know why the Democratic Party insists on this, but this is not the key. I don't really understand that part.
[Anchor]
We must continue to see if we can pass the revised Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act. So far, I have been with Jang Young-soo, a professor at Korea University Law School, and Yang Ji-min, a lawyer. 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]
Society
More- National Investigation Headquarters of Police Conducts a Meeting of Heads of the Metropolitan Area Investigation Team
- The government proposes 'special training cases and postponement of enlistment'...a call for the return of one's major
- [Breaking News] Prosecutors indict Jeon Sung-bae without detention for violating the Political Fund Act.
- Roh Sang-won, "Chairman Seongwan, I will handle it"...Leads the NEC's control by secret election
![34% of the people's power, 36% of the democracies..."Before martial law in both parties" [Gallup]](https://image.ytn.co.kr/general/jpg/2025/0110/202501101915159090_h.jpg)
