2nd round of arrest warrant execution 'War Transport'...Security Service chief refuses to subpoena.

■ Host: anchor Lee Hyun-woong
■ Starring: lawyer Seo Jeong-bin

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN24] when quoting.


[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police are preparing to execute the second arrest warrant for President Yoon.

Park Jong-joon, the former chief of security who is accused of obstructing the execution of the first arrest warrant, appeared again to the police today following yesterday.

Let's take a look at the investigation into the emergency martial law incident, legal issues related to the impeachment trial, and lawyer Seo Jeong-bin.

Park Jong-joon, former chief of security, was questioned for 13 hours yesterday and voluntarily attended. And today, the investigation seems to be underway for the second summons, so what points will the police look into?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, former Chief Park is accused of obstructing the execution of special public affairs by directing security officials as the head of the security department to interfere with the execution of the warrant when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit executed the arrest warrant on January 3. What happened to the police who prevented the execution of the warrant at the time and why they prevented the execution. Specifically, it is expected that an investigation will be conducted on what was directed to the employees or whether there were instructions or opinions from outside.

[Anchor]
I did not respond to the first and second requests for attendance, but this time I voluntarily attended and changed my relatively strong position, so how can I see the background?

[Jeongbin Seo]
As you said, until the previous day, the dominant position was that you would not attend and I thought so, too. However, as I attended unexpectedly, various opinions came out about my intention and background yesterday. First of all, legally, it was the third request for attendance this time, and if he did not attend, there was a very high possibility that an arrest warrant would be issued. However, in the end, the issue of arrest warrants disappeared by voluntarily attending, and on the other hand, there was a possibility that there would be room for dispute when a request for an arrest warrant was made later. That's why I think they would have considered this. One of the various opinions outside of the legal perspective was that the head of the security agency, who had previously stubbornly refused to execute arrest warrants, was present and tried to rally supporters by raising their sense of crisis. On the other hand, there was also an opinion that it caught the police or the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit off guard, who were expecting to be absent.

However, on the contrary, there was a position that opinions within the security office began to diverge a little about the execution of the arrest warrant.
But looking at the situation so far, I think the latter had an effect. When former Minister Park attended yesterday, he asked for a third party's alternative to the president's representative, but he said he did not get an answer. Looking at the attitudes up to that point, the execution of a warrant is illegal. So, in order to carry out his duties in the future, he said that he would prevent the execution of this warrant, and that he asked for an alternative. On the other hand, Deputy Chief Kim Sung-hoon, who became the acting bodyguard instead, did not respond to the request for attendance this morning, and President Yoon's side said that the request for summoning the bodyguard command is still unfair. So I think he's in a situation where he's expressing a different opinion from the former director Park. As a result, one of the reasons for attending in the end was that the security office disagreed with each other about the execution of the second warrant in the future. So, I think this case makes a little more sense, as the former head of the security department failed to carry it out and eventually ended up in attendance.

[Anchor]
You said there are various interpretations of the current situation, but as Deputy Director Kim Sung-hoon said, he was not present. However, Lee Jin-ha, head of the Security and Safety Division, has been present today in response to the second request for attendance. How do I watch this again?

[Jeongbin Seo]
As I said earlier, I think there are conflicting opinions on the execution of warrants in the future. The security agency should also be tough on the inside. Therefore, while there is a position that even secondary execution should be prevented, on the other hand, a third alternative or another alternative must be sought. I understand that there is also a relatively moderate position. So, when I see some people attending and some refusing to attend in the command, I think it can be interpreted as a situation in which opinions are not unified internally and various opinions are coming out.

[Anchor]
Based on the previous cases, I may have had time to consider a little more, but I attended the second round without dragging until the third round, can we interpret something at this point?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think that could be the case. In most cases, when there was a request for the third summons, the former security chief attended the third summons. In the case of the director of the headquarters you mentioned just now, he refused the first time, but he attended right after the second time.
Considering that he was present at a time when he was conducting an investigation into former Security Minister Park, it can be expected that opinions are quite divided even at this point.

[Anchor]
Going back to former Director Park, the possibility of an emergency arrest was raised during yesterday's investigation, but the attendance survey is continuing for two days a year. Did the acceptance of resignation become a variable?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think that was the biggest factor. When he attended yesterday, there was talk of an emergency arrest, although he was voluntarily present, but he may aim to arrest the incumbent head of the security agency urgently and remove the security agency's power in executing the second arrest warrant in the future. So there was a story that an emergency arrest was possible. However, what was confirmed during the investigation was that former Minister Park eventually resigned from his position as the head of the security, which significantly reduced the need to recruit former Minister Park in connection with the execution of an arrest warrant for President Yoon in the future. Therefore, in the end, the necessity and urgency of emergency arrest have become less likely in the requirements, and the need for emergency arrest has decreased.

[Anchor]
Park made various statements when he attended the police yesterday, and we also prepared it graphically. I'll watch it together and tell you. The arrest warrant does not fit the national character. Investigation procedures appropriate to the current presidential status should proceed. I don't think it's the same method of executing an arrest warrant. That's what I'm in. How did you see this argument as a lawyer?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, it seems to have stated once again that the investigation should not proceed with the execution of arrest warrants, and that the primary execution of warrants was unfair. I think it is something that can be said of course as the head of the security department to argue that the investigation process should be carried out in accordance with the presidential status. However, the court has already decided that it is legal, although there has been and still exists controversy over the legality of arrest warrants. At this point, I think it's too late for the security chief to make such a claim, who cannot be considered to have the authority to interpret or apply the law.

[Anchor]
President Yoon Suk Yeol's side is also accused by the prosecution of executing illegal warrants. The prosecution is protesting that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit should be summoned. The illegality of the warrant, what legal basis is there?

[Jeongbin Seo]
It seems that the claims that have been made have been confirmed once again. The reason that the warrant is illegal starts with the fact that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the authority to investigate, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit filed a warrant with the Western District Court in violation of its jurisdiction, so the request is illegal. And the issuance of a warrant in the Western District Court is, of course, the first warrant, but it is also illegal to write down that it will not apply exceptions to the Criminal Procedure Act. It seems to be those arguments based on these things.

[Anchor]
You will be acting as the deputy head of the security service. Deputy Director Kim Sung-hoon will be in charge. First of all, he didn't appear in the third summons. You said earlier that the third round has quite an important meaning, but what intention should I see this as?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Refusing to comply with the third summons seems to be the position that it will eventually respond strongly to the execution of warrants in the future. In the case of the deputy chief, who is acting as the chief of the security service, according to media reports, he is known to be in a much tougher position than the former chief. Therefore, it was already predicted that he would refuse to attend this time as well. In the future, I think they will still try to block the execution of the warrant from a strong standpoint in the execution of the second warrant.

[Anchor]
The warrant issued again this time is known to have a validity of about two weeks, which is longer than a week in the first round, so how is it compared to the usual arrest warrant period?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Usually, once an arrest warrant is issued, the validity period is set for a week. And that's what I knew in the first round. However, setting a deadline of nearly two weeks can be seen as giving a relatively long time, and the court must have understood how the first warrant execution proceeds in the end. If so, it seems that it is better to set the period to two weeks or more than one week in terms of the feasibility of the warrant, and a relatively long time is set under this judgment.

[Anchor]
There is a holiday holiday ahead, and if the execution deadline of the arrest warrant becomes longer, the strategy of the joint investigation will be very complicated. There are even talks about Dong Won-ryeong, 1,000 investigators. Should I see it as a will to succeed in executing the warrant this time?

[Jeongbin Seo]
According to what the police say now, about 150 people were previously deployed to the jurisdiction, but they will secure more than 1,000 personnel. And as of yesterday, commanders from the four metropolitan police offices, including Seoul, were summoned to shape the operation. According to the contents, the convened meeting includes a large number of veteran executives who have a lot of experience in arresting at these sites, such as the head of criminal activities or the head of a drug crime investigation. As they investigate crimes such as important crimes, drug crimes, organized crimes, and large crimes, they have a lot of experience in executing arrest warrants and are quite capable. So, when the number of manpower and the specific details of the manpower in the story are combined, the police seem to think that the second execution is the last execution and will complete it.

[Anchor]
When such a large number of people are mobilized, what will happen to the distribution of roles between the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police at the scene?

[Seo Jung-bin]
For now, the legal entity of execution of the warrant is, of course, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. However, it is naturally expected that the police will play a significant role in supporting it. This is because the police have no choice but to be considerably superior in practice to the investigators of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit in terms of the number of personnel and experience. So, the National Police Agency prevents the expected physical conflict in advance, or minimizes the aftermath when it occurs. In fact, it seems to be a key to success in the execution of warrants that neutralize defense.

[Anchor]
Some mentioned the deployment of police commandos or helicopters. It is known that they are not reviewing it for now. It's a home.Ma would there be a legal issue if it were put in?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The legal issue doesn't seem that big. This is because police commandos mainly perform counterterrorism tasks, but other than that, they can be deployed in various cases, such as preventing or suppressing important crimes related to public order. So, rather than worrying about the legal part of this input, there may be a concern about the bloodshed that can occur when strong force is eventually deployed. On the other hand, these are the points of concern because the deployment of police commandos who usually carry out these special tasks can be criticized as excessive execution, despite the need to secure and execute sufficient manpower.

[Anchor]
We're continuing to deliver it through the screen.Ma's official residence has been fortified to some extent, I think you can see it like this. If you use a crane to remove wire mesh or barrier, would it be a legal problem as well?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That, too, does not cause any particular legal problems. Of course, the incidental disposition required to execute a warrant can be carried out, and if it was a general building house, not an official residence, it is possible to force the door open and enter if necessary. Therefore, if you are blocked by a bus at the time of execution or are unable to enter due to barbed wire, you can mobilize a crane or other equipment to disable them.

[Anchor]
I think it will be like that for the facilities, but if it's a person again, I think it will be different. If lawmakers are camped out, can they be arrested? I don't think the arrest will be attempted just because I'm hitting

[Seo Jung-bin]
First of all, lawmakers have privileges and non-arrest privileges to be arrested during the session, but current offenders are exceptional, so if they judge that such actions constitute obstruction of justice, they can also be arrested. However, on the one hand, it is simply blocking it because it can be viewed as a political activity, and it will not actually lead to arrest to this extent. However, beyond that level, there is a level of violence that actually hinders the execution of the warrant, and if it is judged like this, I think the arrest of the current criminal will proceed.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, the issue of mobilizing soldiers is controversial in preventing the execution of arrest warrants. The Ministry of National Defense has said that it will not send any more military personnel, and the president has to fulfill his original duty. What should young soldiers follow when they are protesting like this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
You can be worried about where to follow in the current controversial situation. Basically, I think that the opinion of the Ministry of National Defense, which is seen as having the ultimate personnel authority and the ultimate authority in the end, should be respected. In fact, soldiers have no choice but to worry about it, and even if they follow the instructions of the Ministry of National Defense, they can fully worry about whether, for example, a crime of protest is established when they refuse to comply with the instructions of the security service. Of course, the court says that even if it does not comply with the superior's legitimate command or order, the crime of protest will not be established, but in the current situation, young soldiers are not sure how they will be evaluated in the future, so I think it will be a big concern.

[Anchor]
I see. Let's also look at the issue of the impeachment trial. It will start next week. The first formal hearing will take place, and President Yoon's side argued that the pace of the impeachment trial is too fast. The Constitutional Court refuted this.

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. The Constitutional Court countered that the situation was not particularly fast in light of existing cases. In the case of former President Roh Moo Hyun, the first hearing was held 18 days after the impeachment trial was filed. And former President Park Geun Hye held his first hearing in 25 days, so in the case of President Yoon, the hearing will be held in 31 days, so it is difficult to say that the proceedings are unusually fast in this case.

[Anchor]
What is drawing a lot of attention now is whether the president will attend the hearing. It seems that you have not yet delivered a special position to the Constitutional Court, so how likely do you think you are to attend?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, I think there is a high possibility that he will not attend the first hearing. Of course, the lawyers did not set the time, but they said they would attend in the end somehow. In other words, I think there is a high possibility that I will not attend on the first day, and one of the important reasons for being forced to do so is that we still don't know whether the warrant will be alive, executed, or whether the effective agency has passed until the first date, so I think it will be burdensome to go on the first date in this situation.

[Anchor]
Do you have any advantages or disadvantages regarding attendance?

[Jeongbin Seo]
There's nothing like that. In the previous impeachment trial, former presidents did not actually attend the impeachment trial. So, if you don't go on the first day, the hearing will not take place at that time, but even if you don't attend from the next day, the hearing continues, and it's not like the judges have different feelings depending on whether they are present or not.

[Anchor]
Even if it's not Tuesday, as you said, it seems that you will attend and make your position known one day anyway, so what happens to your recruits if you assume that the arrest warrant deadline is alive?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In that case, there is a possibility that it will be executed on the spot in the process of moving out of the official residence. Of course, the only way to think is to attend the impeachment trial in the capacity of a president, so another backlash is expected if the warrant is executed, but it is still questionable whether it will be possible, for example, to arrest him on the spot on the way back from the end of the trial.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, the secretary-general of the Constitutional Court, who attended the National Assembly yesterday, expressed his view that the decree does not conform to the current constitution. Of course, the ruling party is criticizing the remarks, saying they are problematic. Is there any possibility that this view will affect the impeachment trial?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the case of the secretary general, since he is not a constitutional judge, I think it is correct to see this as a personal opinion of the secretary general. I don't think it's a situation that can affect the feelings of constitutional judges. One thing I can think of is that the secretary-general came to the National Assembly and made such a statement, even though the Constitutional Court justices thought it was in line with their thoughts, so they could be cautious. If so, I think the constitutional judges can think that they basically disagree on this point. However, the more important issue can be expected to be the opinion of the Constitutional Judge that it is inconsistent with the Constitution, but what is important is whether this is a serious violation of the Constitution that constitutes a reason for impeachment. This is expected to be the most important issue because we do not know what each constitutional judge thinks about this.

[Anchor]
Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who was arrested and charged, held a press conference and said that the emergency martial law investigation was an act of rebellion. What does this mean?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I don't think this is a legal judgment. When the investigation itself was interpreted as a riot act with the purpose of the national constitution, it cannot be considered that it corresponds to the requirements, so this does not seem to be legally meaningful. However, wouldn't it be right to see it as a political expression? So, while emphasizing these things, of course, I think the remarks were made with this in mind, paying attention to public opinion in future criminal cases.

[Anchor]
Finally, let's briefly talk about the special prosecutor. Acting President Choi Sang-mok has asked the political community for a special prosecution law that is not unconstitutional. What kind of unconstitutional elements are we talking about?

[Jeongbin Seo]
A new special prosecutor bill was proposed, but if you compare the situation before that, in the case of the last special prosecutor law, the issue of recommending candidates for the special prosecutor or the issue of non-prosecution rights. There were things like this. However, according to the current proposal, the opposition party originally allowed the recommendation of the independent counsel candidate, but now it has been changed to a third party, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and has not included the right to criticize the candidate recommended by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Other than that, the size of the special prosecution team and the investigation period have been reduced. These points can be said to have been resolved once the controversial part has been resolved, but they have expanded the subject of the investigation in relation to foreign exchange crimes, or allowed separate investigations into cases recognized during the special prosecutor's investigation, and related cases. This part seems to be still maintained, so it seems that there should be an agreement between the ruling and opposition parties when this part is included.

[Anchor]
It doesn't seem easy to reach an agreement, but even if an agreement is reached, doesn't it take time to form a special prosecutor? How long will it take?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, it takes time to recommend candidates, and if the acting president makes the recommendation, it will take time for the National Assembly speaker to process it. Then, it takes time to form an independent counsel, so I think it will take at least three or four weeks as I usually look at it.

[Anchor]
Then, will the investigation of the prosecution and the joint investigation stop as soon as the special prosecutor is agreed? Or is it still valid until the special counsel is launched?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Until the special prosecution is actually launched, the prosecution, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and the police have no choice but to conduct investigations, and that is possible. So, after the launch of the special prosecutor, I expect that the entire case will be transferred according to the request.

[Anchor]
Let's stop talking about it.

So far, I've been with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Thank you.