The former chief of security and the head of the department are present...The deputy security guard doesn't respond.

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Bori
■ 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 [YTN Newswide] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Park Jong-joon, the former chief of security who is accused of obstructing the execution of the arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol, appeared again to the police today following yesterday.

Kim Sung-hoon, deputy head of the security service, did not respond to the police's third request for attendance, while Lee Jin-ha, head of the security and safety division, attended the police just a moment ago.

Let's take a look at what it means to take a mixed step between the security officials with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin.

Park Jong-joon, former chief of security, attended the police for the second time today. It seems that the investigation is still underway, so what are the police investigating?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, Park Jong-joon, the former head of the security service, is under investigation for obstructing the execution of the warrant by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit on January 3rd. The contract details were investigated for a long time yesterday, and it seems to have been carried out to some extent. In the end, comprehensively, the specific details of the incident at the time of the incident and what specific instructions were given to the employees. In addition, what kind of discussions were made with other commands in the background of this decision, and furthermore, whether there were any instructions or influences related to this from outside. It seems that these points will be comprehensively investigated.

[Anchor]
How do you see the possibility of requesting a preliminary arrest warrant?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Although he voluntarily attended three times and is being investigated for consecutive appearances, I admit that he voluntarily attended, but nevertheless, I think the possibility of requesting a preliminary arrest warrant is a little high. In the end, the charges in question are charges of obstructing the execution of special public affairs and specifically obstructing the execution of the warrant issued by the court, so considering the significance and seriousness of these charges, we expect that they will eventually seek a preliminary arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
So if these charges are admitted, how much can we expect the sentence?

[Jeongbin Seo]
This part is really hard to predict. Because according to the current security service and the former security chief's logic, the legitimacy of the warrant was basically a problem. On the other hand, he has argued that there was a reason to prevent execution in terms of security. And outside of the case, there is a lot of controversy in politics about this part, so it is too early to predict the sentence now because how much the court will take into account this part and reflect it.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, Deputy Chief Kim Sung-hoon of the Security Service is also subject to a police summons, but he did not comply with the third summons this morning. If this happens, I think there will be a disadvantage for the suspect, and the police are also trying to secure a recruit, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. Deputy Director Kim Sung-hoon would have refused to summon the third time, and he must have been absent like that, knowing that this part would be against him later. So, he refused to summon him for security reasons, and the police refused to appear twice and even three times, so in the end, there is a justification for requesting an arrest warrant. Therefore, it seems that the police are now fully considering applying for an arrest warrant, and I think I can apply as early as tomorrow.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, Lee Jin-ha, head of the security and safety division of the security service, attended the police this afternoon. The police investigation into the security agency's executive is continuing. Are the charges the same as the two mentioned earlier? [Seo Jeongbin] That's right. The charges now eventually prevent the execution of the warrant by mobilizing employees at the time of execution of the warrant on January 3 at the command of the Security Service. Therefore, they are all accused of obstructing the execution of special public affairs.

[Anchor]
Why did Director Lee Jin-ha come to the 2nd round of attendance?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I don't think this is something I didn't expect. As a result, it seems that there is no choice but to disagree about why you attended. I think there are two main things to look at, but the first is to prevent the issuance of arrest warrants first, and on the other hand, was there a plan to stop emergency arrests or arrest warrants after the death while attending the second round relatively quickly. Furthermore, we will obtain arrest warrants for commanders who were previously said to be one of the plans to execute warrants against President Yoon by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police at the same time. There may be an opinion that the purpose is to delay this plan.

However, on the contrary, there seems to be a possibility that his opinions will not be consistent with the current deputy director Kim Sung-hoon and acting authority. In fact, yesterday and today, former Director Park Jong-joon attended and was investigated, but the fact that the head of the division attended in two sessions did not agree with each other internally, and it was not resolved, so it seems possible that the result of attendance came out in the end. On the other hand, it seems that some people are saying that Director Lee was not at the scene on January 3rd. If it's true or not, this is something that should be revealed, but if it's true, there's no other reason to not attend, so I think that may have affected it.

[Anchor]
So to summarize, can we sort out the time-delayed strategy for the execution of arrest warrants and the other thing is internal psychological breakdown?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think so. In fact, when former Chief Park attended yesterday, there were many opinions about the background. As I said, on the one hand, it hit a loophole by misleading the existing plans of the police and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. This is why the request for a warrant against the president was a setback, while Kim Sung-hoon seems to have maintained a relatively strong stance in the case of current deputy chief Kim Sung-hoon, while Park, who attended yesterday, was relatively moderate. Therefore, in the end, the attendance was mixed because of internal agitation. Furthermore, the head of the headquarters attends again, and the former head of the security department refuses to attend, but the head of the department attends again in the second round and shows such conflicting steps, so there seems to be a good reason for the opinion that there is a disagreement in internal opinions.

[Anchor]
But Lee Jin-ha is currently working. It may be difficult to call him back if he returns from the investigation. Is there any chance that the police will take the boot?

[Jeongbin Seo]
There's a possibility. I think there will be a lot of variables. First of all, considering future enforcement procedures, of course, there is a realistic need for the police to make arrests. Therefore, there is a clear possibility of an emergency arrest considering that some of the command is missing as the head of the headquarters is put in inches and then execution of President Yoon is carried out. On the other hand, I have to think about it. In the case of Director Lee, he attended after two times.

So this may be an ambiguous situation to make an emergency arrest because, in fact, the attendance was made within a relatively short period of time as to whether there was a risk of escape. Furthermore, it seems that the deadline for the execution of the warrant against President Yoon in the future, when do you think it will be executed, and this seems to be a matter to consider in the end regarding the emergency arrest of Director Lee, so it is difficult to predict whether the emergency arrest will be made and what other statements would have been made in today's investigation.

[Anchor]
The second arrest warrant execution against President Yoon is a top concern. Deputy Director Kim Sung-hoon, you refused to comply with the summons, should we maintain the ironclad security strategy we have been doing so far?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think so. Although everyone expected the third time, he refused to attend the third time, and he did not attend because of security and security. Therefore, given the situation so far, and the attitudes and remarks, I can fully predict that they will eventually try to block the execution in the second execution.

[Anchor]
The basis is, of course, the security law.

[Jeongbin Seo]
As the Security Service has argued before, first of all, it is a security zone under the Security Act, so the execution of such an illegal warrant should be prevented. We must prevent harm to the president. Of course, I'll take this as the basis. On the other hand, since this is a place that requires military confidentiality, we cannot conduct a search unless the person in charge approves it, so we expect that they will try to block the execution based on these existing claims.

[Anchor]
The deadline for the second arrest warrant is known to be longer than the first. If so, the strategies of the collaboration can also be diversified. There is also a saying that more than 1,000 investigators are being mobilized right now. There are also comments that the police, such as the Drug Crime Investigation Unit, are mobilizing strong key commanders. Can you explain this part?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Now, there are talks that we are considering asking for support for more than 1,000 people in terms of manpower, and yesterday, we called in each commander in the Seoul metropolitan area to plan for the execution of the warrant, and we are calling in the officers, investigators, and commanders. Judging from these stories, it can be said that they are showing a strong will to execute the second warrant in the future. In particular, considering the number of people who requested support, and the commanders convened yesterday, it seems that they are mobilizing personnel who have a lot of experience in executing warrants in practice, such as criminal mobilization and masudae.

In fact, these police officers I just mentioned are veterans who have sufficient experience in warrant execution compared to other investigators because they investigate and execute targets that can be quite opposed to organized crimes or drug crimes. So even if you look at these aspects, it can be evaluated that they are showing a strong will for secondary execution.

[Anchor]
So, what role can these personnel play in the field?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, the subject of the execution of the warrant is, of course, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. However, in practice, it seems that it has no choice but to play a very important role. So, in order to prevent physical collisions in advance, they can be put in and play a role, and if there is actually a physical conflict due to opposition, it is expected to play a role in minimizing or piercing it, and eventually, it will play an important role in determining the outcome of warrant execution.

[Anchor]
Some even mentioned the deployment of helicopters and police commandos, but they said they were not reviewing this part. If it is put in, is there a legal problem?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In fact, it doesn't seem to be a big problem legally. In the case of SWAT, one of the main tasks is the counter-terrorism mission, but other important cases can be put in by requesting support. So, this part cannot be said to have no legal basis, but in fact, the bigger problem is that realistic risks can increase.

[Anchor]
Are you concerned about physical conflict?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. Since they are police officers with strong physical power, the risk of bloodshed in actual execution cannot be ruled out. In addition, if there is such an execution, there may be criticism that it is too much or excessive as an execution against the president, so as it has been revealed so far, we will not review this in detail as the story comes.

[Anchor]
Meanwhile, Senior Superintendent of Airborne Affairs Oh Dong-woon attended the National Assembly and said that incumbent lawmakers who block the execution of President Yoon's arrest warrant can also be arrested as a current offender. So, in the case of lawmakers, they have the privilege of not arresting, but in this case, that's not the case, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The non-arrest privilege has the right not to be arrested during the session. The exception there is that the right does not apply to the current offender. Therefore, as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said, if you are actually suspected of obstructing the execution of public affairs and are a current offender, you can arrest him. Of course, in reality, if it is to the point of temporarily condemning the execution by scrumming anyway, it will not be arrested, but in some cases, if there is such an action that can actually interfere with considerable execution by exercising physical force, it is possible to arrest a current criminal.

[Anchor]
Meanwhile, the issue of mobilizing soldiers was also raised to block the execution of arrest warrants. The Ministry of Defense has said it will not send military personnel. I think you've considered the legal basis, but what aspects have you considered?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I didn't give a clear basis. First of all, I wonder if the military personnel rights are ultimately the authority of the Ministry of National Defense, so I think this might have been used as a basis. According to the administrative commission consignment regulations, the Ministry of National Defense can be regarded as a consignment agency, and the consignment agency can cancel or suspend the entrusted agency's business if it is deemed illegal or unfair. Therefore, according to these ground rules, the Ministry of National Defense seems to be arguing that it should not be mobilized on these grounds because it may be judged that it is illegal or illegal for the security service to execute the warrant.

[Anchor]
When the Ministry of National Defense comes out like this, the president is protesting. They say that the 55th Guard should carry out its original mission. Under these circumstances, can the 55th Guard be disadvantaged if they do not comply with the security service or what they say?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, there is a possibility. In the end, there is a clear possibility that if you do not obey your superior's orders and if you do not comply, you will be guilty of protest. However, in order to be established in detail, it may be controversial in this case whether the order is legal or not. If the case actually proceeds, it will be judged by the court, but is it an act according to legal instructions to prevent a warrant issued by the court, or is such an order legal? In the end, I expect that it will not be judged that way if it is evaluated.

[Anchor]
The president's other position was that he said he would not respond to the execution of arrest warrants, but would respond to prosecutions or arrest warrants. How should I look at this part?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, the premise that an arrest warrant is illegal seems to be a situation that continues to claim. And in the end, President Yoon seems to be in this position that it is worth considering through the court and that it is worth judging. Because if you are prosecuted, you will of course go to trial, and if you request an arrest warrant in advance, you will conduct a warrant review before this. Since this is also a procedure conducted by the court, I think it may be effective to make a pleading through the court rather than the investigative agency. On the other hand, I think it shows another message that it does not comply with all procedures.

Therefore, the arrest process may be illegal, but it may be a message that we will comply with such procedures in the court, and even though President Yoon said he would fully comply with the court process when the arrest warrant was executed later, it is unreasonable to execute the arrest warrant despite expressing such a position. Since it can be used as such an attack point, I think these points have been considered.

[Anchor]
This time, let's look at the impeachment trial. The first formal hearing will be held on the 14th, and President Yoon claimed that the pace of the impeachment trial is too fast. So, the Constitutional Court refuted one by one. Can you explain it to me?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The Constitutional Court refuted that it was not a particularly fast situation, considering the schedule of the impeachment trial twice in the past. So, in the case of former President Roh Moo Hyun, the hearing date was held 18 days after the case was filed, and in the case of former President Park Geun Hye, the first hearing date was held 25 days after the filing, but in the case of President Yoon, the first hearing date is scheduled 31 days after the filing, so even if you look at these two cases, it is not unusually fast.

[Anchor]
I'm also interested in whether President Yoon will attend the impeachment hearing this time, so how do you see this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Personally, I think it would be difficult to attend at the first date or at the beginning. In fact, as the agents said now, they will attend in the future, but given that they cannot specify the timing, there are no plans to attend from the first day. In particular, with the warrant still in effect, of course, it is not known what will happen in the meantime, but at this point, it can be a time when the warrant deadline remains when the attendance is made, and if so, it seems burdensome to go from the first date in advance because attendance at the Constitutional Court and execution of the warrant could face each other.

[Anchor]
Could it be disadvantageous for the party to attend on the pleading date?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think it's right to see that there's not much difference in this part. In the last case, former President Roh Moo Hyun and former President Park Geun Hye did not attend. In the case of the impeachment trial, it is by no means an honorable position, so I did not attend and expressed my opinions through proxy to the lawyers. Therefore, even compared to the previous case, it seems that the Constitutional Court does not have to judge this differently based on whether or not to attend.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, the secretary-general of the Constitutional Court attended the National Assembly yesterday and said that the emergency martial law decree does not conform to the current constitution. However, the ruling party criticizes this as a problematic statement. How can this Secretary-General's view affect the impeachment trial?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the case of the secretary-general of the Constitutional Court, since he is not a constitutional judge, the opinion of the secretary-general is unlikely to affect the impeachment trial. Of course, since it is a sensitive topic, I wonder if there was a special reason to make such a statement in the National Assembly. For example, since it is an ongoing case, it is the judges' opinion on this, or it will be revealed by the procedure in the future. I wonder if this statement was correct, but on the other hand, the fact that the secretary-general had to talk about this sensitive part did not think that he would disagree much with other constitutional judges on this part. So, rather than affecting it through this, I think you can think of it as a statement that can sense the atmosphere of the Constitutional Court.

[Anchor]
Let me point out another comment that came out yesterday. Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun held a press conference yesterday. They claim that the emergency martial law investigation is an act of rebellion. What does this mean?

[Jeongbin Seo]
This part seems to be quite difficult to see as a legally meaningful argument. As for the current investigation, there is virtually no room for it to be regarded as a riot or a national constitution, so rather than putting it up as a defense logic from a legal point of view, I believe that public opinion will have some influence on the ongoing trial.

[Anchor]
Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's lawyers said that another confusing thing is that the current emergency martial law decree No. 1 is still in effect. What do you think of it as a lawyer in this part?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I also looked up a little bit of the article, and the remarks seem to have done so, but that doesn't mean that martial law has been in effect so far. In the end, martial law was declared at the time, and from the time the proclamation was announced until the martial law was lifted, so it was in effect for an hour or six hours, and then it can be punished for those who engaged in political activities that banned it at that time. The charges are still available today. I think it's in this position.

Personally, of course, as a lawyer, I think it is possible to make a claim regardless of the request for the benefit of the criminal defendant, but I doubt a lot how much such claims and subsequent accusations can affect criminal trials.

[Anchor]
Let's stop here.

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