Yoon will not appear at the first hearing of the impeachment trial...Ruling and opposition parties fight over censorship of social media

■ Host: Anchor Lee Ha-rin, anchor Choi Doo-hee
■ Starring: Attorney Kim Sung-soo

* 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]
President Yoon is not expected to attend the first hearing of the impeachment trial scheduled for the 14th due to personal safety and security issues. The ruling and opposition parties are engaged in a war of words over Democratic Party lawmakers' remarks to accuse them of spreading fake news related to propaganda on social media. Let's organize the related contents with lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Welcome. The first hearing date on the 14th is actually when the trial begins, but the president said he will not attend. What do you mean by that?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, it can be seen as the first anniversary of the impeachment case. As for whether to attend on the first day, there was a story that there was a high possibility that he would not attend at the first day because he said he would attend at an appropriate time, but isn't there a variety of issues such as re-execution of an arrest warrant today? Therefore, if this is not resolved due to personal safety and security issues, it will be difficult to attend on the 14th by stating once again that it is difficult to attend on the 14th, but I think he answered that there are problems with personal safety even if it is not the execution of an arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
If so, there is a high possibility that the first pleading date will remain idle. If so, it actually starts from the 16th, but considering the warrant date variable of 2-3 weeks, do you think you will attend around February? What do you think?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, I was thinking that the right time would be about the third or fourth date, but if the current situation does not complete the re-execution of the arrest warrant, isn't it impossible to rule out the situation of being arrested after the attendance process, the due date, and the pleading? Therefore, there was a part that was expected to appear after the expiration date of the re-execution of the arrest warrant. But isn't there a story that the lawyers have submitted a senior appointment to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit now that a variable has occurred again today?

If so, submitting a senior appointment can be seen as an indication of his intention to attend, so there may be situations in which the re-execution of the arrest warrant itself is terminated through attendance next week, so this became a variable because he can attend on the 14th or 16th or the pleading date. I think I can tell you this.

[Anchor]
There are 14th, 16th, 21st, and 23rd of the arguments scheduled now, and it's scheduled until February 4th after the holiday. So how can we judge the advantages and disadvantages of the president and what the lawyers explain without coming out directly?

[Kim Sung-soo]
If you look at the Constitutional Court's trial process, oral argument seems to be the main content, and the judge of the court asks questions about facts and legal aspects. If so, it will be answered by the National Assembly and the president, and if the respondent answers through an agent, even if the judge is not able to immediately answer the facts, that can be taken into account because he is not himself. However, if the person who attended the meeting fails to immediately answer the facts, it can be an issue because there are parts that can be viewed differently. However, isn't the president presenting himself and denying the facts as a whole?

If you tell a specific story that can trust the facts you deny, there are variables like that because the case can proceed in the president's favor.

[Anchor]
It's not easy to predict.There is also a possibility that the Constitutional Court will sentence a judge as early as March. However, President Yoon should guarantee 180 days. There are also such opinions, so what do you think about the possibility that President Yoon's position will be accepted?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, Article 38 of the Constitutional Court Act states that the sentence must be made within 180 days from the date of receipt. And we have to see that the current case was passed on December 14th and was filed right around that time. If so, if you say you fill up this 180-day period, it can be a fairly long period because it's 6 months. The issue is how to view this part because the President of Yoon Suk Yeol is insisting that this 180-day period should be completed as much as possible and that the content of Article 38 itself should be interpreted as meaning that it should be handled quickly because it should be sentenced within 180 days. The Constitutional Court is expected to think about the interpretation, and even if it proceeds a little faster than 180 days, the Constitutional Court has no choice but to be very careful in judging facts and legal principles because it is a very serious matter.

That's why we have to look at that and how long it will take, and I think we can infer based on past cases, but there were also impeachment cases against President Roh Moo Hyun and President Park Geun Hye. And at that time, it took 63 days for President Roh Moo Hyun and 90 days for President Park Geun Hye, so it was said that it would take that long. However, in this regard, President Park Geun Hye and President Roh Moo Hyun did not have a single fact, but there were a lot of facts, and there were procedures to reveal the facts. However, in the case of President Yoon Suk Yeol, the facts themselves are the same day, the 3rd and the 4th.

That's why it's a day and the case itself can be seen as one. Depending on the proof of facts or how you proceed with this part, the period may be shorter or longer, so we need to comprehensively review this part, and the predictions are about three or four months, but isn't it a situation that keeps changing to the point where the current expectations are meaningless? Therefore, I think we should consider that and put various possibilities.

[Anchor]
We've looked at the timepiece of the Constitutional Court. Let's return to the investigative agency. As you said, the president's lawyers submitted an appointment to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit today, but why was it today? The head of the security has resigned and is currently vacant. Why did they issue it today when the rest of the security department's leadership is about to be summoned?

[Kim Sung-soo]
There's a battle of truth about this. The president of Yoon Suk Yeol says he went to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to submit it on the 8th. And I was going to go to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, submit my seniority, and have an interview to talk about my opinion, but they didn't let me enter. Don't you have to go in to have an interview? He told me to register at the civil service office without allowing me to enter, so I couldn't meet him in the end, so I couldn't submit a senior appointment and returned. I talked about it like this, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said that there was a way to apply to the civil service office at the time, but that the interview was impossible, so I went back without submitting this part.

[Anchor]
Which one is correct?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's why it's not really a deployed factual relationship. It's true that I came, but it's also true that I couldn't enter. And it is the position of President Yoon Suk Yeol that he did not submit his senior because he could not enter, and even if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit did not have an interview, he could. So, both are true, but there are different arguments about whether or not they submitted a seniority, so it can be seen that there is a debate about this, and isn't the part submitted today clearly confirmed?

Therefore, if there is a part that you are willing to attend today's submission, it can be a dispute over whether it is necessary to proceed to the execution of an arrest warrant, so today's submission can be very meaningful.

[Anchor]
In the midst of this, the police requested an arrest warrant for Kim Sung-hoon, the deputy chief of the security service, who refused to comply with the request for attendance three times. On the premise of an incident, an arrest warrant will be issued for Deputy Chief Kim Sung-hoon, so what will happen to the execution? Will it proceed at the same time as the execution of an arrest warrant for President Yoon? Or will it be executed separately? Please tell me about the timing of the execution of the warrant.

[Kim Sung-soo]
Perhaps if an arrest warrant is issued for Deputy Chief Kim Sung-hoon, you should consider the practical part of that. If you say you're with the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, if this is what it says, you can first execute it and then arrest it. But if you say it's not, if you say it's in the official residence, you end up with a part that has to go inside. In that sense, it can be executed on the same day, and in the case of the president, there is a claim that the president cannot arrest him for security under the Presidential Security Act, but the deputy chief is not subject to security under the Presidential Security Act.

As a result, since the deputy chief is currently in charge of the actual command, he will strongly block the flow of security if the commander is arrested, and even if there is a possibility of change, it is highly likely that he will try to execute it on the same day. As I said, the senior manager has been submitted, so if the president appears in this regard, the execution of the arrest warrant against the president could be eliminated. Then, I think I can tell you that when an arrest warrant is issued for the deputy director, this may be carried out separately.

[Anchor]
There are a series of summonses for the head of the security service, and if you look at the news just now, the police should also appear as a suspect for Kim Shin, the head of the security service. I notified them like this. What kind of person is Kim Shin?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of Kim Shin, I understand that he is in charge of the family department at the security office. According to the security law, the head of the family is the subject of security for even the president and his family. Therefore, the head of the family can be seen as a manager in charge of protecting the family, and Kim Shin has been notified to appear on the 14th to be investigated as a suspect. If so, I will judge what role Kim Shin played in obstructing the execution of special public affairs on the 3rd, and first, I will check the facts after being present as a suspect.

Since this is what we are talking about, there is a part where I think a new factual relationship has been found in this part, and the possibility of finding a new factual relationship has been investigated against the current director and the head of the headquarters, right? This person played a role in the process. In the process of making such a judgment, there is a part where it is expected that the person can be a suspect in this part as well, and that the person may have been notified of his attendance after reviewing it like this.

[Anchor]
There was also a breaking news that he received a mobile phone from Park Jong-joon, the former chief of security, and confiscated it.

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the case of mobile phones, when the suspect's investigation proceeds, it will be used to determine the facts, such as receiving a voluntary submission of the mobile phone or confiscating it through a warrant and forensics. And now, in cases of obstruction of the execution of special public affairs, the head of the security service is not a person who uses physical force to prevent it or was on the front line, but rather a person who was in charge, so it is necessary to determine what kind of instructions were given to the person who commanded and whether the instructions could constitute obstruction of the execution of special public affairs.

[Anchor]
As you said earlier, Park Jong-joon, the former head of the security service, and Lee Jin-ha, the head of the security and safety department, attended the police and were investigated. In the meantime, assuming that an arrest warrant will be issued for Deputy Chief Kim Sung-hoon, there will also be a stir within the security office. How do you view it?

[Kim Sung-soo]
Whether the attendance of the head of the security and the head of the headquarters itself was due to internal division or what kind of strategic attendance was through internal discussions. There are various opinions on this, but even if the attendance is based on internal discussions, the issuance of an arrest warrant for the deputy chief will not be based on discussion, so there is a greater possibility of internal division at this time. If there is an internal division and there is a number of people who do not follow the command, in the end, there may be more impossible parts about the deterrence, so I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police are also thinking about various plans.

[Anchor]
There is inevitably a temperature difference between the head of the security service and the employees, and they have different positions. Therefore, there are various voices predicting whether the arrest of all the security officials will be charged with obstructing the execution of the second arrest warrant, or because the pension issue is also at stake. How do you see it?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the obstruction of the execution of special public affairs itself is established when the execution of public affairs itself interferes with public affairs through assault or intimidation. And in the case of special cases, if you carry several people or dangerous objects, it interferes with the execution of special public affairs. And if this part is established, pension or other issues under the National Public Officials Act can be an issue, so we have no choice but to review it. Now that the two sides are divided on whether a crime of obstruction of the execution of special public affairs can be established, a judgment will be made on this part through a trial by investigating and prosecuting it. If the prosecution is made, there is a different view on whether the Airborne Division will include employees or the military and police who participated at the time.

If you do not actively participate in this part by order, it can be considered that it does not fall under this part, so even that part should be judged as guilty or not, and if it becomes guilty or not, it will be an additional issue as to how far the punishment will be.

[Anchor]
Shall we change the subject a little and go with the investigation of rebellion? Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who was indicted on charges of rebellion, is due on the 16th. The trial date has begun, and the trial on the emergency martial law situation is now in full swing, right? Please also briefly point out the trial schedule.

[Kim Sung-soo]
As you said, in the case of former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, the first defense preparation date has been set. Then, in the case of the preparation date, it is to set the framework for how to proceed with the deadline as a whole, and it can be said that the first step that started anyway has been completed. Currently, the defense minister was the first to be arrested, and the commanders were subsequently arrested and charged. As for these commanders, President Park An-soo's case is said to be scheduled now, the deadline will be carried out sequentially, and in the process, it will be carried out through a process in which both sides prove their respective facts through witness examination, and there may be additional parts of facts that we do not know, so this is what we have to look at, and eventually the facts of these people will be confirmed. In the end, criminal cases will become the same issue and can be the subject of the same proof, so I think we should look at these parts with interest.

[Anchor]
The claims made by the lawyers of former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun are prepared graphically. It would be nice if you could show it to us. If you look at the contents, the investigation into the rebellion is a practical rebellion led by political forces trying to remove President Yoon.
The prosecution's indictment is just a wrong answer note that incorrectly stated that the subject of the civil war was President Yoon. That's how I organized it. In the end, former Minister Kim's side said that the emergency martial law decree No. 1 was still in effect, and it was a measure to check and normalize the National Assembly. Let's look at how it's going to be handled in court.

[Kim Sung-soo]
Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun claims that the prosecution's indictment itself is different from the truth, and in the end, it is argued that this was legal martial law, not civil war. And if it was legitimate martial law, it would be necessary to keep the decree until then until martial law was declared and lifted, and if it violated the decree, this part would be punished. Therefore, according to the logic, since the decree itself was valid in the end, it will be an additional issue as this process is being carried out, and eventually, a criminal case is a matter of how to prove the facts and how to accept them in the trial. As the facts are currently fighting sharply differently, the issue is expected to be what evidence to prove the facts claimed.

[Anchor]
Meanwhile, the National Assembly has pushed for the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act, and the special prosecutor's plan to lead the investigation into the charges of rebellion, and the discussion and approval of the re-voting result are two votes short. However, in the case of acting authority Choi Sang-mok, the ruling and opposition parties agreed to prepare a special prosecution law. What do you think about the necessity of the independent counsel law in relation to the investigation of civil war? Do you think we need an independent counsel or what do you think the insurrection investigation should be?

[Kim Sung-soo]
So, isn't there a case where it is not appropriate for an existing investigative agency to conduct an investigation as a special prosecutor? In such a case, there could be a controversy over fairness, and in such a case, let's investigate the case through an independent counsel and decide whether to prosecute the case. If we proceed through the independent counsel in this case, we will be able to organize the cases that the police, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and the prosecution are currently working on.

The issue of traffic arrangement was controversial, so it could be sorted out, but if the special prosecution law is passed, it could take a long time for the special prosecution to organize itself, and when the investigation is carried out after the composition, it could take time to receive and organize the part conducted by the investigative agency again. In the end, there is a story that the case itself takes more time to proceed with the criminal case itself. However, if we decide to investigate more broadly than the current scope of the investigation and propose an independent counsel, I think this should be reviewed comprehensively because opinions can be divided on that part.

[Anchor]
We have predicted whether the independent counsel law on civil war and the ruling and opposition parties can be reached. Let's look at the next topic. The National Assembly is fighting over SNS. This is because of the remarks made by a Democratic Party lawmaker. Please show me the graphic when it's ready. Even ordinary people can be punished for propaganda related to rebellion through KakaoTalk. I was talking about this. However, it is punished as propaganda against ordinary people for sending news links. Is this possible?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, let me explain the crime of propaganda of civil war. If you look at Article 90-2 of the Criminal Code, there is a provision that a person who incites or propagates to commit a crime of civil war will be sentenced to three years or more in prison and imprisoned for abandonment. Therefore, if the crime of propaganda of rebellion is established, it can be criminal punishment. However, when looking at the precedents regarding this propaganda of civil war, if you look at the 2015 precedents, the meaning of the crime of inciting civil war is specified. Therefore, in the case of incitement of rebellion, acts that urge or encourage the person to decide and execute the act of rebellion aimed at the execution of rebellion are called incitement, but since there has been no clear interpretation of the meaning of propaganda, we will have to look at the court's judgment as to whether it can be a propaganda crime in the end. However, based on the imprisonment for abandonment or imprisonment for more than three years and a very serious sentence, I expect that there will be a lot of requirements for the crime of propaganda of rebellion to be established.

[Anchor]
On the contrary, the ruling party is in a position to file a criminal complaint against lawmaker Jeon Yong-ki, saying that it constitutes a crime of coercion and intimidation. Should I look at it as so-called kakaotalk censorship? What do you think of this part?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think we can claim this part as well, but I think we need to think about how the court will judge this part. In the case of coercion and intimidation, it is a part of punishment for forcing or threatening to do something, and moving any part through Kakaotalk is a crime of propaganda of rebellion, and you can file a complaint against this part. In the end, it is necessary to make a legal judgment as to whether it can be a crime of coercion or intimidation. So, I think it's hard to say in the current situation that this is going to be legal because there are individual arguments.

[Anchor]
The Democratic Party of Korea has already filed a complaint with the police against some YouTubers for propaganda of rebellion. It started here, but the ruling party criticizes the Democratic Party of Korea as blocking the people's mouth.

[Kim Sung-soo]
If this part is enough to lead to an act that constitutes propaganda of rebellion, it would be difficult to see this part as contrary to the constitutional freedom of expression. However, if it is intended to limit freedom of expression in this part if it does not fall under the crime of propaganda of rebellion, this argument seems to come out because it can be a problem. However, as I mentioned earlier, there is no clear precedent for propaganda, so there may be legal issues about how far the meaning of propaganda is interpreted, and I think there are many legal points to think about whether accusing it itself can be seen as an act of muzzling.

[Anchor]
President Yoon has been suspended from office, but he will receive about 260 million won in annual salary this year. It seems to have increased by about 3%, but there is a separate legal basis for limiting remuneration payments, but it is said that there is no part. Do you think there is no basis for such restrictions? What do you think about the grounds for restrictions?

[Kim Sung-soo]
It can be seen that the president's remuneration is judged by the National Public Officials Act and the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations. And if you look at the civil service remuneration regulations, there is a reason for the reduction of remuneration. Therefore, there are regulations that can be reduced in these areas, such as disciplinary measures, absenteeism periods, or breaks, but it is not clear whether it can be reduced if the job is suspended due to the impeachment decision. Therefore, since the amendment has been proposed because it could be a problem to be paid while the job is suspended, we will have to wait and see if the proposal is passed.

[Anchor]
I see. Thank you very much. So far, we've been talking about impeachment with lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Thank you.