■ Host: Anchor Baek Jong-gyu, Anchor Lee Se-na
■ Starring: Lawyer Sohn Soo-ho
* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN News Special] when quoting.
[Anchor]
Yoon Suk Yeol's president, accused of being the leader of a rebellion, is at a crossroads.
Let's look at the main issues related to the actual examination of the arrest warrant and future investigations. You came out with lawyer Sohn So-ho.
The actual examination of the arrest warrant is scheduled at 2 p.m. today, and before that, it became 10 p.m. At 10 o'clock, the president said he would announce whether the president would attend in person today, but according to the breaking news just now, lawyers Yoon Gap-geun, Bae Jin-han, and Kim Hong-il met with President Yoon. There will be an announcement of the position after that. What do you expect?
[Sonho]
Yesterday's arrest warrant was requested at 5 p.m. And at that time, lawyers were interviewing the president. However, it seems that it would have been difficult to determine the position after receiving the request for an arrest warrant during the interview. Therefore, after the interview yesterday afternoon, we learned that an arrest warrant was requested, and to respond to the warrant's substantive examination, lawyers are guaranteed to meet with the arrested suspect and assist in various ways.
Therefore, it seems that lawyers met with the president in the morning and discussed various things ahead of today's warrant review. However, I don't know what kind of discussion we had and what kind of conclusion we came to. So I think the position of the president's lawyers, who are likely to be here a while ago, is very important.
[Anchor]
The actual examination of the arrest warrant, that is, the interrogation of the suspect before arrest, is to guarantee the suspect's right to defend himself. But isn't it against the suspect if President Yoon doesn't attend in person?
[Sonho]
That's right. The investigative agency argues that the actual examination of the arrest warrant, or the interrogation of the suspect before arrest, needs to be arrested, but the judge will call the suspect, who is the subject, to the court to ask and confirm the exact judgment of whether he or she should actually be arrested or whether he or she meets the requirements for arrest. So the investigative agency, of course, saw the need for arrest, so they asked for a warrant.There are quite a few cases where Ma dismisses it without issuing it because he thinks there is no need for arrest when asked directly.
It's a procedure for the protection of such rights. Therefore, it is common for the suspect to come out and tell various stories. But it's not that I don't attend. However, such backgrounds and causes vary. First of all, there are also non-attendances as a protest.
In other words, there are cases in which it does not come out as a protest, pointing out various problems in the investigation process. In particular, there were many cases in the current situation. And the second is the opposite dimension of reflection. I can't go out because I'm ashamed. I admit all my faults. So I will be tried and punished while in custody. In some cases, they do not go out to ask for forgiveness.
However, if the president does not attend today, it will probably not come from protests or various objections to the jurisdiction court, rather than from reflection or recognition. Another important thing is, of course, to express that there is no need for restraint and there is no reason for restraint, I will make various positions, if present. Such an expression of position itself may work against the overall view.
Because of course, the president will insist strongly on those parts because he is confident and legally has problems. However, based on objective legal standards, there may be some things that are a little hard to accept from the court's point of view. So far, we've focused on raising issues in procedural areas, so there's still controversy and confusion from a variety of perspectives.If the issue goes to the point of substance, there is a high possibility that the various arguments made by the president today in the court will not be present today because they can be very important future judgments.
[Anchor]
If there's an announcement of our position in a little while, we'll connect it right away and listen to it. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit requested an arrest warrant this time to the Seoul Western District Court, which was the same as the previous request for an arrest warrant. The president continues to question jurisdiction. Even though the judgment of rejection of the arrest suit was made earlier, the argument has been consistently maintained.
[Sonho]
That's right. There are many purposes, but there seems to be an inevitable aspect. First of all, the president's refusal to comply with the current investigation can only be maintained by objecting to all the procedures that have been going on and pointing out the investigation that has been going on. That's why the Central District Court decided to reject the arrest suit.Ma has been claimed by us so far, but it has been rejected this time, so we will admit everything from now on, we cannot say that we have made a mistake in the meantime.
Therefore, it seems to be continuing the position on the procedure so far. And only if you do, it's a non-legal judgment.That's the part.Ma still has many strong supporters of the president in front of the court. It seems that these people have no choice but to continue to raise questions about this procedural part because they need to maintain the momentum to continue to defend the president.
Also, if we return to the legal part, there seems to be no excuse to give in the substantive part. In other words, the problem now is that in criminal proceedings, the president has committed a rebellion, ordered several other accomplices, and thus determines whether a rebellion has been committed. We are also investigating to accurately judge this. In the process, the need for arrest was judged, and the need for arrest will be judged. If so, it should be that it is not a crime of rebellion.
However, under our law, there are clear criteria for judging which crimes are treasonous and which actions are treasonous. Judges also know exactly. It's also a personal guess.President Ma's lawyers will of course be well aware of those criteria, and if they go to trial under the current circumstances, they will have their own judgments on whether they are guilty or innocent. That's why they might have decided that it's not beneficial to continue to make a point in substance and continue to argue about that.
Therefore, inevitably, we have raised procedural issues until now. But I threw an unexpected game, but I failed. The Central District Court requested an arrest suit, but the Central District Court accepted it without a judgment on its jurisdiction, and even decided that the issuance of an arrest warrant was legal, so it became very difficult. But even so, because it's an unacceptable situation here, it's a situation that will lead to a great heavy sentence, so we're still making very strong legal claims and resisting them while maintaining our existing claims.
[Anchor]
Is it the president's act of governance, or is it a civil war? In fact, you mentioned the issue of whether President Yoon Suk Yeol will be arrested or not. Are there other issues?
[Sonho]
The president is the first to argue that it cannot be subject to judicial review because it is a governing act that the host said. Since it is not subject to judicial review in the first place, all procedures that have been done so far are illegal. You can do it. I've also seen it like that before. However, after that, several important Supreme Court judgments came out and the Constitutional Court's judgments came out, and now even governance acts are not unconditionally excluded from judicial review, but in some cases, they should be sufficiently subject to judicial review.
Moreover, one of those reasons is whether there is a civil war in question right now. We can't rule out the possibility that the president will be found not guilty if, of course, he is indicted.Ma can be seen as the subject of judicial review, even if it was an act of governance, whether or not the current controversial civil war is committed. I don't think the president knows, either.
However, legal arguments are free, and there are cases where the Supreme Court's judgment changes once and then comes back and changes again. That's why I think this argument itself can be done. In addition, even if it is an act of governance but is subject to judicial review, the purpose of the national constitution should be recognized even at the next stage. However, the purpose of the National Constitution is what someone thought when they did something.
But unless you're a god, you can't know exactly what this person thought and acted for what purpose. This is a human limitation. Therefore, our Supreme Court has even presented the criteria for judging the purpose of the national constitution in such cases. In the Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo cases, it is said that in judging the purpose of the national constitution at the time, it can be seen and judged through various other objective circumstances.
Therefore, even in this case, if you are indicted by the court and judged, you will be able to determine whether you had the purpose of the national constitution at that time if you are now a suspect but become a defendant in the future. And the next step is whether it's rioting or not. Of course, because it's called a riot, it's recognized as a mob rampage.
However, it is not in that social sense, but there should be assault or intimidation enough to harm the tranquility of an area. Also, the term assault appears in our criminal law a lot of times. The word for assault is the same, but the meaning is different from law to law. The most basic thing is the exercise of tangible force against the body in the case of assault that strikes a person. A little wider than that, assault in a broad sense is assault in obstruction of justice. We've looked at it a lot of times. In this case, it can be included even if it is not necessarily a direct tangible force for the body.
In addition, the widest range of assault in our law is assault in the crime of rebellion. Therefore, can the assault referred to in the riot be admitted? And threats can also be included in this at the same time. Whether there is a governing act subject to judicial review and whether the purpose of the national constitution is recognized by going into detail. The next step is whether or not the riot will be recognized.
Next, the president is the only one being investigated as the head of a rebellion. In the case of several important mission workers who are already being prosecuted and tried, they are not the boss. If so, the investigative agency judges that it is at its peak is the suspect, the president. Then, unlike others, you can become the head of a rebellion only when you confirm that you have commanded all these things and also instructed all other accomplices. These will be very important criteria in court if prosecuted in the future.
[Anchor]
Since the warrant review is scheduled for 2 p.m. today, there are four hours left, and the investigative power of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will also be evaluated by the arrest. However, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit revealed that the arrest warrant was firmly prepared.
[Sonho]
After the president was arrested, he was shot in the airlift. After that, he said nothing about being investigated. Or only made some statements and generally didn't open their mouths. There have been several reports such as exercising the right to refuse to make statements. That's why the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has not been able to properly investigate, causing a setback in future proceedings. There were some opinions like this, but it was hard to see it like that.
Because the exercise of the right to refuse to make a statement was foreseen.Even if Ma doesn't say anything or refutes all the questions, in fact, he would have already written a lot of the arrest warrant claims in this case, which had gone so far, at the time. And the prosecution would have written quite a lot of the indictments. Because there are quite a few accomplices who have already been investigated and prosecuted. Also, the reference investigation was not reported by the media.Ma would have done quite a lot.
In addition to the investigation, there are a lot of objective images, other voices, and evidence. Through this, the investigation has already been virtually confirmed, and if it is issued, how to request an arrest warrant, and how to file a prosecution, maintain the prosecution, and obtain a conviction. I guess the strategy establishment in this area has already been established a long time ago.
[Anchor]
It is said that the amount of arrest warrants submitted by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to the Western District Court is about 150 pages. There are some media reports that they referred to President Yoon as a typical conviction when requesting a warrant. However, President Yoon's side is not guilty of conviction. That's what he said. How can we evaluate these parts?
[Sonho]
First of all, it's hard to understand that you're not guilty because you're a convicted criminal. After a while, I'm sure I've declared emergency martial law because I'm confident. However, is that conviction a crime under the current law? In addition, according to the judgment of the Constitutional Court, whether it is the reason for dismissal or not. The judgment of whether or not to do so remains in the future. And the content of the media reports, the president seems to be a convincing criminal. If you have to interpret this part, today is a judgment on the requirements for issuing an arrest warrant.
Then, among the requirements for issuing an arrest warrant, the seriousness of the crime should be considered in judging the possibility of destroying evidence and running away. Another important thing is that in determining whether to issue a warrant, expectations or predictions of future situations will also have an impact. In other words, if the president is released because an arrest warrant is not issued and he goes to his official residence, it should be questioned whether criminal proceedings can proceed properly in the future.
In this regard, the reason why the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit used the expression "confident criminal" in a situation where there are probably questions from the judge today and how the lawyers will respond to it is a little questionable whether it should be used when requesting an arrest warrant. It looks like there's an intention. Because he is a conviction, he seems to believe that the requirements to declare emergency martial law are met.
[Anchor]
You can declare an emergency martial law again, right?
[Sonho]
That's why if I were released and returned to my official residence, I would still believe that the requirements of emergency martial law were met, and in addition to this, I've been struggling for about 40 days now, even though I've declared a legitimate emergency martial law. And a lot of media criticized or criticized him, and he went to a detention center. Arrest warrants have been executed. If so, I think it will be an even stronger state of emergency and a situation in which martial law must be declared. If so, it is presumed that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit stated in the warrant request that this part should be reflected in the issuance of the arrest warrant.
[Anchor]
The judge in charge of determining whether President Yoon will be arrested is also interested, but the judge on duty will be in charge because it's the weekend?
[Sonho]
That's right. According to the court regulations, the warrant judge system is supposed to be operated. Of course, the courts are different in size and there are exceptions depending on the circumstances.In principle, there should be a judge in charge of warrants. Especially if it's about the size of the Western District Court. However, it is not possible for a warrant judge to work all 365 days. Therefore, we have a duty system in case it is charged outside of business hours or should be done on holidays. It's stipulated to have a duty system.
Each court operates a duty system. So, in some cases, some courts announce that the warrant will be reviewed at what time on Saturday and Sunday. That's how it's set, but that doesn't mean that the judge on duty has to do it if the warrant is always reviewed on public holidays. So the principle can be done by a judge on duty.In some cases, a warrant judge may do it. This in itself is not illegal, and it is not illegal.
However, if you do so in this case now, it could spark even more controversy. Because the two judges in charge of warrants in the Western District Court have already decided on this case, regarding arrest. Therefore, it seems that the judge on duty will make a judgment this time because if they are involved in issuing an arrest warrant, they can be criticized.
However, there is a lot of talk about the judge's tendency, career, past history, or past judgment cases.You can actually say that in the world. And I think I can talk about it comfortably on my personal level.Ma doesn't seem to mean much.
In other words, the court is the court, the judge is the judge, and the court's judgment is the judgment. If so, I don't think it actually means much to judge and predict that it will be like this today and that it will be like this in the future, especially because it is a judge who has shown certain behaviors and actions.
[Anchor]
You're denying the justice system, aren't you?
[Sonho]
is correct. I think so, too.
[Anchor]
Is it decided by one judge on duty?
[Sonho]
That's right. That's how it's supposed to be judged. And in principle, today's warrant examination is not disclosed. However, when I work, I sometimes allow the audience to attend exceptional events, including victims. And in some cases, escorted police officers watch from behind when they are taken out of the police. Or there are cases where a third party watches.
In this case, it is also necessary to ask such a third party in determining whether an arrest warrant is issued by a judge with special permission. There's a case where I ask them to watch because they might ask me.Everything matters.E In the case of even more sensitive and sensitive issues such as today, it is likely that a procedure that is not thoroughly disclosed will proceed without such a procedure.
[Anchor]
Judges judge the importance of the issue, the fear of flight, and the fear of destroying evidence. A battle is expected between the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the lawyers on this part. In the case of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, President Yoon has refused to comply with the summons three times and is consistent with the investigation in an uncooperative manner. How do you see this part?
[Sonho]
is correct. As you mentioned now, the criteria for determining whether or not to issue a warrant today will be those you mentioned a while ago. First of all, the president's position seems to be delayed a little, so if you think you have time until you make your position clear, it would be good to organize this legal part in detail today and move on. The most important thing is whether there is considerable reason to suspect that the suspect has committed a crime. It's also called a criminal clarification for short. The calling is lower than the proof.
In other words, if you go to trial, you have to prove it. In other words, the judge must be convinced of guilt to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the evidence. Only then can a conviction be made.Ma, what we need at this stage is whether there is a good reason. So it doesn't require a high level of proof, it has to have a low level of calling. But that doesn't mean you're simply admitting to making a claim, but there should be considerable reasons to suspect that the president has committed treason, etc., which is the first gateway.
So yesterday, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit submitted a 150-page warrant request, and in addition, evidence and related documents were submitted together. This is the first gateway. It also determines the need for the next step of restraint on the premise that the second and first gate has been passed. That's the fear of destroying evidence that the host said, the fear of running away. Of course, we're going to ask if our housing is constant.Ma may at least be excluded from this issue. Then I'll look at the two in order. First, I'm concerned about destroying evidence.
Then will you destroy the evidence again? You don't ask and judge like this. Promise not to destroy evidence. It's not something you can do with it, which is to consider a number of reasons comprehensively, but there are rules of the Supreme Court trial. If you look at the rules on the handling of reasons for personal detention, there are guidelines on how the court should judge the concern of destroying evidence.
Is there evidence to destroy the first? If there is no evidence to destroy, there is no fear of destroying it. But now there is evidence to destroy in this case. Evidence does not only have objects, physical evidence, and evidence, but also certification and people are evidence. In other words, you can come out as a witness and testify. And even if they are investigated and prosecuted as accomplices and tried together, they can separate the trial and become witnesses to each other. Of course, he's in custody, so it won't be easy to approach him.Ma may also stay at the current reference level or there may be other prospective witnesses who are not references.
The second is whether the evidence decisively influences other people's testimony, etc. to prove the crime of rebellion. The court will also judge this part. Third, is it physically and socially possible to destroy evidence like that? But now, the suspect in this case is the president. I'm telling you from the standpoint of an investigative agency to the incumbent president and other accomplices. I gave various instructions. The accomplices followed those instructions. With this premise, the court can determine whether there is a possibility of destroying evidence, both physically and socially.
Also, lastly, how much pressure or influence the suspect and the suspect can exert on the witness. The current president will also play an important role in this part. In other words, someone who is generally not very relevant. It may not be recognized for people who are not in a relationship.Ma is accused of being the head of a rebellion. If so, it can be seen that it is much higher than other accomplices who shared various tasks, so we will judge the concern of destroying evidence by combining these things.
I'll also look at the fear of running away. Concerns about running away are also comprehensively judged by various factors and stipulated in the Supreme Court's court rules. The first is the situation of the crime. This is very important. The first one among them is the seriousness of the crime. In other words, if you have committed a heavy crime, you may run away. If it's a minor offense, you don't have to run away. This is the first standard. But of course, the charges have not been proven and convicted. I hope you can accept it on the premise that I tell you at the investigation stage. Isn't it a crime of rebellion? He's the head of the rebellion. The court sentence is very high.
It's the death penalty, life imprisonment, or life imprisonment. Therefore, these circumstances will be reflected because the charges currently being charged are very heavy. In addition, personal circumstances, family relationships, and social environment are also considered to judge the fear of running away. I won't tell you the details.There is another part to refer to. What I said earlier is about the Supreme Court trial.
And among the regulations of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, there are guidelines for handling arrest and detention. Of course, it's the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit that investigated this and asked for a warrant.There is something to refer to. Among the rules of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, there are guidelines for handling arrest and detention. If you look at this, there's one more thing in the court's judgment criteria for fear of running away. There's one more, and this means more than you think. One more thing to add is whether the investigative agency did not comply with the attendance of the investigative agency without a justifiable reason.
[Anchor]
This time, it is similar to the situation of the president of Yoon Suk Yeol.
[Sonho]
That's right. On the premise that the arrest warrant was legally requested and issued, it is judged that way so far. Why didn't you respond to the legitimate execution of the arrest warrant and the arrest warrant was issued before that? I asked for attendance, but he didn't respond. There is a rule of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office that the prosecution should consider these areas comprehensively and judge them.
If so, we simply exclude feelings about likes and dislikes of the president or his response to the current situation, and we don't judge it by that. I looked at the court's criteria and how the investigative agency judges. I had a chance to take a closer look because the lawyer's position was delayed. Today, the court will decide whether to issue an arrest warrant.
[Anchor]
President Yoon initially said that he would announce at 10 a.m. whether he would attend the arrest examination in person, but the announcement of his position has not yet been made. The interview with the lawyers seems to be delayed and they seem to be worried about something. Earlier, a lawyer who expressed his position that President Yoon would refuse to comply with the warrant review in the Western District Court said, but there was a situation that needed to be considered a little more later. I changed my words like this. What kind of situation is it that needs to be considered? In anticipation.
[Sonho]
There must be a lot of concerns. However, basically, the actual examination of the arrest warrant and the interrogation of the suspect before arrest are for the protection of the suspect's rights. In other words, there is no need to arrest the suspect, right? I don't think I have to arrest him. The judge judges whether it is okay to investigate without detention. If so, it is basically advantageous for the suspect who is the subject of the warrant request to attend and tell his or her situation and express that there is no need for arrest.
However, in the current situation, various precedents and general situations do not seem to apply as they are. There seem to be a number of reasons. Therefore, rather than saying definitively that I will not attend, I think I still leave some room. Because I don't think what we talked about at the stage yesterday was the president's final decision.
[Anchor]
You're saying it without listening to my intentions, right?
[Sonho]
We had an interview yesterday afternoon.Ma was asked for an arrest warrant at 5:40, and there was no negotiation at night on how to respond and how to deal with this strategy on the premise of an arrest warrant. As a result, I think I'll have a hasty interview this morning to coordinate and organize various positions, but I don't know the exact situation.Ma said in the past that lawyer Seok Dong-hyun would not do it at first regarding the request for an arrest suit. But after that, I got to do it and talked about it.
Therefore, if you have several lawyers, you can work together, come up with a lot of ideas, and share roles to do well, but there may be confusion. Among them, there are several lawyers who answer questions from the media. Therefore, even though it is not in a final conclusion and a summarized position, I mentioned the reporters' questions slightly, and it is possible that the mention itself was reported very loudly. Therefore, it is expected that we will finally ask the President's position and reveal his position in a moment on how to deal with it today.
[Anchor]
I think the interview with the president is increasing. It could take a long time to meet the president, right? We can have a long interview, right?
[Sonho]
That's right. Especially by the presumption of innocence, you're not guilty. And you're not in prison. I haven't even been charged. Therefore, since an arrest warrant has been requested, of course, you have to seek assistance from a lawyer and you can receive it. In particular, after an arrest warrant is requested after an arrest, lawyers can meet in person to help and receive help from the suspect's point of view. Even if a person is suddenly arrested, he or she is not brought to the substantive examination center of the arrest warrant and makes a judgment right away, but gives time to respond and prepare various things before then. Another delay in expressing one's admission...
[Anchor]
There's a breaking news that just came in. It's what the police special team said. News has come out that an arrest warrant has been executed for Lee Kwang-woo, the head of the security headquarters. Lee Kwang-woo, the head of the security department, is considered one of the hardliners in the security department. Given that Kim Sung-hoon, deputy head of the security service, who had delayed the execution of the arrest warrant, was arrested after police appearance the previous day, it was expected that Lee's whereabouts would be secured, but when he attended the police this morning, the news was reported that the arrest warrant was executed together.
[Anchor]
When executing the arrest warrant for the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, the police first tried to arrest Lee Kwang-woo and Kim Sung-hoon. However, after the security service was over at the request of the president, I attended the police with a commitment that I would attend the police with my lawyer. It has been reported that an arrest warrant has been executed since attending the police.
Lawyer, as the time for reviewing the arrest warrant for President Yoon approaches, supporters of President Yoon are rallying everywhere, and I just told you about the situation of the Western District Court. I think there was a very intense conflict over there.
[Sonho]
I'm doing a legal analysis from a legal point of view.Ma said, "The fundamental background of this is the president's political actions. And what the president is claiming is that the president's declaration of emergency martial law is based, background, and cause. At the same time, various points and complaints about political actions by opposition parties have been revealed. As a result, support or rejection of this investigation seems to be divided not only by likes or dislikes of the president, but also by various positions on the political party supporting the current political situation.
Therefore, the people who support the president are taking various actions in front of the court building, and because they are all Korean citizens, they can continue to support the president no matter how much he is arrested and is about to be examined for arrest. However, I don't think it should lead to a total rejection of legal proceedings or the judicial system. I'm very concerned about those things. In particular, I think it is possible to block the entry of vehicles or other personnel in front of the government building in a fierce mind and thinking of the president.
But it's technically a criminal offense, and technically, it can be subject to punishment. Of course, all citizens who express this meaning should be punished, and let's make it the subject of judicial review. It's definitely not like this. Rather, I personally think that not doing so helps national unity.
However, if it goes beyond the current situation and leads to more violent and violent acts, it can lead to various pressures or even death threats from the perspective of law enforcement agencies, which can lead to fear and not a fair and objective judgment. Don't tell me you're aiming for those things, but I think it would be good to understand it simply as an expression of anger. I hope various measures will continue so that it does not deepen.
[Anchor]
Rally and demonstration is a guaranteed right for everyone. It's the best way to keep it safe and orderly.
[Sonho]
However, you have to get out of 100 meters. So, what you do right in front of the building is actually a dangerous act legally considered.
[Anchor]
It has not yet been decided whether the president will attend or not after the warrant is opened, but how long after the substantive examination does it usually take for an arrest warrant to be issued?
[Sonho]
In the case of arrested suspects, if an arrest warrant is requested, the regulation says to examine without delay. Therefore, since it was requested yesterday evening, the warrant hearing time has been set for 2 p.m. today. And when all the judgments are made, it is stipulated that he, too, should produce results without delay. However, it is not stipulated that there is no delay within hours, within days, and after hours.
Therefore, it is told to judge as quickly as possible and present the results. In the meantime, given the precedent, I think the results will come out late tonight or early in the morning. Because when we do this a lot, sometimes in the case of large-scale events reported in the media, in the case of major politicians or in the case of major businessmen, the process goes on for 5, 6, 8, 9 hours, and after that, we think a lot about it and the results come out even at late dawn. But that's a very unusual case. There are even a lot of cases that end in five or ten minutes.
And there are also cases where they do that and then collect them and send out the results right before work. But I don't think that can happen today. Of course, the issue itself may not be as complicated as you think, but there are many limitations because you cannot ask directly if the president is not present.If the results come out too soon, haven't they decided the results in advance or haven't made a proper judgment? Or, there may be a point that does not mean that he has only pretended to listen to the president's argument. Therefore, it seems that the judge will make a decision with sufficient time and consideration because it is a very important issue.
[Anchor]
According to the report, Yoon's lawyers, including Kim Hong-il, are interviewing Yoon, and only after the interview is over will the president be able to reveal whether he will attend the warrant review today. The interview seems to be delayed. Accordingly, the announcement of the position seems to be delayed a little more. I'll let you know when I hear the news. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is said to have about six or seven prosecutors attending the warrant, but if the president does not attend, will only the lawyers from President Yoon's side attend?
[Sonho]
There is a possibility that it will happen. In fact, there are cases where only lawyers go when the suspect does not come out. But I've done it without a suspect, but my position is embarrassing. Because an arrest warrant should not be issued. In other words, the allegations are not clarified, or there is no need for arrest. In order to claim that there is no fear of destroying evidence and that there is no fear of running away, it is most effective for the person concerned to speak, in general cases. But if you don't attend, even if you're a lawyer, you're not a party.
In that respect, there seems to be a possibility that the argument will lose strength. First of all, I think it is necessary to briefly look at the general procedure of interrogating the suspect before arrest. It's the order. First of all, the right to refuse to make a statement is notified on the premise that the suspect will attend. The right to refuse to state is notified, followed by the status of recognition. It's to identify who it is. The next step is what is the reason for the arrest as well as the crime stated in the arrest warrant request. I am informing you of this. Then the judge asks the suspect a question.
They will be interrogated, but if the president is not present, they cannot directly interrogate the suspect. In the next step, prosecutors and lawyers continue to state their opinions, and if the president is present, the suspect's opinion is made and finished as the last step, and even if the president is not present, the lawyer can attend and state his or her opinion. These are all in Article 201-1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
And the prosecutor can also attend the interrogation date and state his or her opinion. Therefore, if the president is not present, the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the president's lawyers are expected to come out and express their opinions. Also, the judge will ask the lawyers a number of things, even if they are not the suspects themselves.
To guess, we will examine and judge various materials related to the head of the current charge of the civil war and interrogate him.What was the president thinking and what he did at the time? Also, there are facts stated in the warrant request, so did you really do that, etc. Confirmation is because this issue is so important. I think that's what's needed.
Then, it is better to ask the person concerned about the destruction of evidence or the fear of running away.Ma will also have various procedures to confirm these things with the lawyer, and on the contrary, the prosecutor has been cleared of the charges, and there are various evidence, especially several generals who have been identified as other accomplices and are currently being investigated and prosecuted.
Or the cops. Through these statements and confessions of the allegations, the allegations will be clarified, and various needs should be recognized for the fear of destroying evidence and running away. And another important thing is to interrogate the suspect before arrest.
Then you'll be out of custody again during that period. That's what happened with the arrest of the enemy. So, even in the case of the actual examination of this arrest warrant, the warrant request, investigation documents, and evidence all went to the court at 5:40 p.m. yesterday. It's been registered. The period shall not be inserted into the arrest period from the date of filing with the court until the date of issuing the arrest warrant and returning it to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit.
[Anchor]
If an arrest warrant is issued, as you said, the prosecution and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will consult each other for 10 days and conduct an investigation in principle. That's what I said. If an arrest warrant is not issued, how will the investigation be conducted?
[Sonho]
At this stage, the possibility of dismissal, apart from personal judgment, must be taken into account. Even if it is dismissed, the important thing is the reason for the dismissal. The first step is to look at the calling of the crime. Is there a good reason to think that you committed a crime? If an arrest warrant is not issued because it is not recognized from there in the first place, this will have a huge impact.
Especially from the court's point of view, it's an assumption that the crime hasn't even been explained by the head of the rebellion at this stage.It's... In that case, there will be a huge, huge change. However, that is not the case, but the clarification of the crime is recognized. I could be the leader of a civil war. However, at this stage, there is no fear of destroying evidence. Also, there is no fear of running away. If so, the request for an arrest warrant may be dismissed from that point of view because the investigation should be conducted without detention.
In this case, the investigation is conducted without detention. In addition, if that happens, it usually acknowledges the charges or expresses its position to cooperate with the investigation in the future, but whether it will be done in the current situation. Or even if they promised to do so, various confusion that will occur if they do not cooperate will also be the reason for the court's important judgment.
[Anchor]
I see. So far, I have pointed out legal issues related to the examination of President Yoon's arrest warrant with lawyer Sohn Soo-ho. 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: Lawyer Sohn Soo-ho
* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN News Special] when quoting.
[Anchor]
Yoon Suk Yeol's president, accused of being the leader of a rebellion, is at a crossroads.
Let's look at the main issues related to the actual examination of the arrest warrant and future investigations. You came out with lawyer Sohn So-ho.
The actual examination of the arrest warrant is scheduled at 2 p.m. today, and before that, it became 10 p.m. At 10 o'clock, the president said he would announce whether the president would attend in person today, but according to the breaking news just now, lawyers Yoon Gap-geun, Bae Jin-han, and Kim Hong-il met with President Yoon. There will be an announcement of the position after that. What do you expect?
[Sonho]
Yesterday's arrest warrant was requested at 5 p.m. And at that time, lawyers were interviewing the president. However, it seems that it would have been difficult to determine the position after receiving the request for an arrest warrant during the interview. Therefore, after the interview yesterday afternoon, we learned that an arrest warrant was requested, and to respond to the warrant's substantive examination, lawyers are guaranteed to meet with the arrested suspect and assist in various ways.
Therefore, it seems that lawyers met with the president in the morning and discussed various things ahead of today's warrant review. However, I don't know what kind of discussion we had and what kind of conclusion we came to. So I think the position of the president's lawyers, who are likely to be here a while ago, is very important.
[Anchor]
The actual examination of the arrest warrant, that is, the interrogation of the suspect before arrest, is to guarantee the suspect's right to defend himself. But isn't it against the suspect if President Yoon doesn't attend in person?
[Sonho]
That's right. The investigative agency argues that the actual examination of the arrest warrant, or the interrogation of the suspect before arrest, needs to be arrested, but the judge will call the suspect, who is the subject, to the court to ask and confirm the exact judgment of whether he or she should actually be arrested or whether he or she meets the requirements for arrest. So the investigative agency, of course, saw the need for arrest, so they asked for a warrant.There are quite a few cases where Ma dismisses it without issuing it because he thinks there is no need for arrest when asked directly.
It's a procedure for the protection of such rights. Therefore, it is common for the suspect to come out and tell various stories. But it's not that I don't attend. However, such backgrounds and causes vary. First of all, there are also non-attendances as a protest.
In other words, there are cases in which it does not come out as a protest, pointing out various problems in the investigation process. In particular, there were many cases in the current situation. And the second is the opposite dimension of reflection. I can't go out because I'm ashamed. I admit all my faults. So I will be tried and punished while in custody. In some cases, they do not go out to ask for forgiveness.
However, if the president does not attend today, it will probably not come from protests or various objections to the jurisdiction court, rather than from reflection or recognition. Another important thing is, of course, to express that there is no need for restraint and there is no reason for restraint, I will make various positions, if present. Such an expression of position itself may work against the overall view.
Because of course, the president will insist strongly on those parts because he is confident and legally has problems. However, based on objective legal standards, there may be some things that are a little hard to accept from the court's point of view. So far, we've focused on raising issues in procedural areas, so there's still controversy and confusion from a variety of perspectives.If the issue goes to the point of substance, there is a high possibility that the various arguments made by the president today in the court will not be present today because they can be very important future judgments.
[Anchor]
If there's an announcement of our position in a little while, we'll connect it right away and listen to it. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit requested an arrest warrant this time to the Seoul Western District Court, which was the same as the previous request for an arrest warrant. The president continues to question jurisdiction. Even though the judgment of rejection of the arrest suit was made earlier, the argument has been consistently maintained.
[Sonho]
That's right. There are many purposes, but there seems to be an inevitable aspect. First of all, the president's refusal to comply with the current investigation can only be maintained by objecting to all the procedures that have been going on and pointing out the investigation that has been going on. That's why the Central District Court decided to reject the arrest suit.Ma has been claimed by us so far, but it has been rejected this time, so we will admit everything from now on, we cannot say that we have made a mistake in the meantime.
Therefore, it seems to be continuing the position on the procedure so far. And only if you do, it's a non-legal judgment.That's the part.Ma still has many strong supporters of the president in front of the court. It seems that these people have no choice but to continue to raise questions about this procedural part because they need to maintain the momentum to continue to defend the president.
Also, if we return to the legal part, there seems to be no excuse to give in the substantive part. In other words, the problem now is that in criminal proceedings, the president has committed a rebellion, ordered several other accomplices, and thus determines whether a rebellion has been committed. We are also investigating to accurately judge this. In the process, the need for arrest was judged, and the need for arrest will be judged. If so, it should be that it is not a crime of rebellion.
However, under our law, there are clear criteria for judging which crimes are treasonous and which actions are treasonous. Judges also know exactly. It's also a personal guess.President Ma's lawyers will of course be well aware of those criteria, and if they go to trial under the current circumstances, they will have their own judgments on whether they are guilty or innocent. That's why they might have decided that it's not beneficial to continue to make a point in substance and continue to argue about that.
Therefore, inevitably, we have raised procedural issues until now. But I threw an unexpected game, but I failed. The Central District Court requested an arrest suit, but the Central District Court accepted it without a judgment on its jurisdiction, and even decided that the issuance of an arrest warrant was legal, so it became very difficult. But even so, because it's an unacceptable situation here, it's a situation that will lead to a great heavy sentence, so we're still making very strong legal claims and resisting them while maintaining our existing claims.
[Anchor]
Is it the president's act of governance, or is it a civil war? In fact, you mentioned the issue of whether President Yoon Suk Yeol will be arrested or not. Are there other issues?
[Sonho]
The president is the first to argue that it cannot be subject to judicial review because it is a governing act that the host said. Since it is not subject to judicial review in the first place, all procedures that have been done so far are illegal. You can do it. I've also seen it like that before. However, after that, several important Supreme Court judgments came out and the Constitutional Court's judgments came out, and now even governance acts are not unconditionally excluded from judicial review, but in some cases, they should be sufficiently subject to judicial review.
Moreover, one of those reasons is whether there is a civil war in question right now. We can't rule out the possibility that the president will be found not guilty if, of course, he is indicted.Ma can be seen as the subject of judicial review, even if it was an act of governance, whether or not the current controversial civil war is committed. I don't think the president knows, either.
However, legal arguments are free, and there are cases where the Supreme Court's judgment changes once and then comes back and changes again. That's why I think this argument itself can be done. In addition, even if it is an act of governance but is subject to judicial review, the purpose of the national constitution should be recognized even at the next stage. However, the purpose of the National Constitution is what someone thought when they did something.
But unless you're a god, you can't know exactly what this person thought and acted for what purpose. This is a human limitation. Therefore, our Supreme Court has even presented the criteria for judging the purpose of the national constitution in such cases. In the Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo cases, it is said that in judging the purpose of the national constitution at the time, it can be seen and judged through various other objective circumstances.
Therefore, even in this case, if you are indicted by the court and judged, you will be able to determine whether you had the purpose of the national constitution at that time if you are now a suspect but become a defendant in the future. And the next step is whether it's rioting or not. Of course, because it's called a riot, it's recognized as a mob rampage.
However, it is not in that social sense, but there should be assault or intimidation enough to harm the tranquility of an area. Also, the term assault appears in our criminal law a lot of times. The word for assault is the same, but the meaning is different from law to law. The most basic thing is the exercise of tangible force against the body in the case of assault that strikes a person. A little wider than that, assault in a broad sense is assault in obstruction of justice. We've looked at it a lot of times. In this case, it can be included even if it is not necessarily a direct tangible force for the body.
In addition, the widest range of assault in our law is assault in the crime of rebellion. Therefore, can the assault referred to in the riot be admitted? And threats can also be included in this at the same time. Whether there is a governing act subject to judicial review and whether the purpose of the national constitution is recognized by going into detail. The next step is whether or not the riot will be recognized.
Next, the president is the only one being investigated as the head of a rebellion. In the case of several important mission workers who are already being prosecuted and tried, they are not the boss. If so, the investigative agency judges that it is at its peak is the suspect, the president. Then, unlike others, you can become the head of a rebellion only when you confirm that you have commanded all these things and also instructed all other accomplices. These will be very important criteria in court if prosecuted in the future.
[Anchor]
Since the warrant review is scheduled for 2 p.m. today, there are four hours left, and the investigative power of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will also be evaluated by the arrest. However, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit revealed that the arrest warrant was firmly prepared.
[Sonho]
After the president was arrested, he was shot in the airlift. After that, he said nothing about being investigated. Or only made some statements and generally didn't open their mouths. There have been several reports such as exercising the right to refuse to make statements. That's why the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has not been able to properly investigate, causing a setback in future proceedings. There were some opinions like this, but it was hard to see it like that.
Because the exercise of the right to refuse to make a statement was foreseen.Even if Ma doesn't say anything or refutes all the questions, in fact, he would have already written a lot of the arrest warrant claims in this case, which had gone so far, at the time. And the prosecution would have written quite a lot of the indictments. Because there are quite a few accomplices who have already been investigated and prosecuted. Also, the reference investigation was not reported by the media.Ma would have done quite a lot.
In addition to the investigation, there are a lot of objective images, other voices, and evidence. Through this, the investigation has already been virtually confirmed, and if it is issued, how to request an arrest warrant, and how to file a prosecution, maintain the prosecution, and obtain a conviction. I guess the strategy establishment in this area has already been established a long time ago.
[Anchor]
It is said that the amount of arrest warrants submitted by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to the Western District Court is about 150 pages. There are some media reports that they referred to President Yoon as a typical conviction when requesting a warrant. However, President Yoon's side is not guilty of conviction. That's what he said. How can we evaluate these parts?
[Sonho]
First of all, it's hard to understand that you're not guilty because you're a convicted criminal. After a while, I'm sure I've declared emergency martial law because I'm confident. However, is that conviction a crime under the current law? In addition, according to the judgment of the Constitutional Court, whether it is the reason for dismissal or not. The judgment of whether or not to do so remains in the future. And the content of the media reports, the president seems to be a convincing criminal. If you have to interpret this part, today is a judgment on the requirements for issuing an arrest warrant.
Then, among the requirements for issuing an arrest warrant, the seriousness of the crime should be considered in judging the possibility of destroying evidence and running away. Another important thing is that in determining whether to issue a warrant, expectations or predictions of future situations will also have an impact. In other words, if the president is released because an arrest warrant is not issued and he goes to his official residence, it should be questioned whether criminal proceedings can proceed properly in the future.
In this regard, the reason why the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit used the expression "confident criminal" in a situation where there are probably questions from the judge today and how the lawyers will respond to it is a little questionable whether it should be used when requesting an arrest warrant. It looks like there's an intention. Because he is a conviction, he seems to believe that the requirements to declare emergency martial law are met.
[Anchor]
You can declare an emergency martial law again, right?
[Sonho]
That's why if I were released and returned to my official residence, I would still believe that the requirements of emergency martial law were met, and in addition to this, I've been struggling for about 40 days now, even though I've declared a legitimate emergency martial law. And a lot of media criticized or criticized him, and he went to a detention center. Arrest warrants have been executed. If so, I think it will be an even stronger state of emergency and a situation in which martial law must be declared. If so, it is presumed that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit stated in the warrant request that this part should be reflected in the issuance of the arrest warrant.
[Anchor]
The judge in charge of determining whether President Yoon will be arrested is also interested, but the judge on duty will be in charge because it's the weekend?
[Sonho]
That's right. According to the court regulations, the warrant judge system is supposed to be operated. Of course, the courts are different in size and there are exceptions depending on the circumstances.In principle, there should be a judge in charge of warrants. Especially if it's about the size of the Western District Court. However, it is not possible for a warrant judge to work all 365 days. Therefore, we have a duty system in case it is charged outside of business hours or should be done on holidays. It's stipulated to have a duty system.
Each court operates a duty system. So, in some cases, some courts announce that the warrant will be reviewed at what time on Saturday and Sunday. That's how it's set, but that doesn't mean that the judge on duty has to do it if the warrant is always reviewed on public holidays. So the principle can be done by a judge on duty.In some cases, a warrant judge may do it. This in itself is not illegal, and it is not illegal.
However, if you do so in this case now, it could spark even more controversy. Because the two judges in charge of warrants in the Western District Court have already decided on this case, regarding arrest. Therefore, it seems that the judge on duty will make a judgment this time because if they are involved in issuing an arrest warrant, they can be criticized.
However, there is a lot of talk about the judge's tendency, career, past history, or past judgment cases.You can actually say that in the world. And I think I can talk about it comfortably on my personal level.Ma doesn't seem to mean much.
In other words, the court is the court, the judge is the judge, and the court's judgment is the judgment. If so, I don't think it actually means much to judge and predict that it will be like this today and that it will be like this in the future, especially because it is a judge who has shown certain behaviors and actions.
[Anchor]
You're denying the justice system, aren't you?
[Sonho]
is correct. I think so, too.
[Anchor]
Is it decided by one judge on duty?
[Sonho]
That's right. That's how it's supposed to be judged. And in principle, today's warrant examination is not disclosed. However, when I work, I sometimes allow the audience to attend exceptional events, including victims. And in some cases, escorted police officers watch from behind when they are taken out of the police. Or there are cases where a third party watches.
In this case, it is also necessary to ask such a third party in determining whether an arrest warrant is issued by a judge with special permission. There's a case where I ask them to watch because they might ask me.Everything matters.E In the case of even more sensitive and sensitive issues such as today, it is likely that a procedure that is not thoroughly disclosed will proceed without such a procedure.
[Anchor]
Judges judge the importance of the issue, the fear of flight, and the fear of destroying evidence. A battle is expected between the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the lawyers on this part. In the case of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, President Yoon has refused to comply with the summons three times and is consistent with the investigation in an uncooperative manner. How do you see this part?
[Sonho]
is correct. As you mentioned now, the criteria for determining whether or not to issue a warrant today will be those you mentioned a while ago. First of all, the president's position seems to be delayed a little, so if you think you have time until you make your position clear, it would be good to organize this legal part in detail today and move on. The most important thing is whether there is considerable reason to suspect that the suspect has committed a crime. It's also called a criminal clarification for short. The calling is lower than the proof.
In other words, if you go to trial, you have to prove it. In other words, the judge must be convinced of guilt to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the evidence. Only then can a conviction be made.Ma, what we need at this stage is whether there is a good reason. So it doesn't require a high level of proof, it has to have a low level of calling. But that doesn't mean you're simply admitting to making a claim, but there should be considerable reasons to suspect that the president has committed treason, etc., which is the first gateway.
So yesterday, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit submitted a 150-page warrant request, and in addition, evidence and related documents were submitted together. This is the first gateway. It also determines the need for the next step of restraint on the premise that the second and first gate has been passed. That's the fear of destroying evidence that the host said, the fear of running away. Of course, we're going to ask if our housing is constant.Ma may at least be excluded from this issue. Then I'll look at the two in order. First, I'm concerned about destroying evidence.
Then will you destroy the evidence again? You don't ask and judge like this. Promise not to destroy evidence. It's not something you can do with it, which is to consider a number of reasons comprehensively, but there are rules of the Supreme Court trial. If you look at the rules on the handling of reasons for personal detention, there are guidelines on how the court should judge the concern of destroying evidence.
Is there evidence to destroy the first? If there is no evidence to destroy, there is no fear of destroying it. But now there is evidence to destroy in this case. Evidence does not only have objects, physical evidence, and evidence, but also certification and people are evidence. In other words, you can come out as a witness and testify. And even if they are investigated and prosecuted as accomplices and tried together, they can separate the trial and become witnesses to each other. Of course, he's in custody, so it won't be easy to approach him.Ma may also stay at the current reference level or there may be other prospective witnesses who are not references.
The second is whether the evidence decisively influences other people's testimony, etc. to prove the crime of rebellion. The court will also judge this part. Third, is it physically and socially possible to destroy evidence like that? But now, the suspect in this case is the president. I'm telling you from the standpoint of an investigative agency to the incumbent president and other accomplices. I gave various instructions. The accomplices followed those instructions. With this premise, the court can determine whether there is a possibility of destroying evidence, both physically and socially.
Also, lastly, how much pressure or influence the suspect and the suspect can exert on the witness. The current president will also play an important role in this part. In other words, someone who is generally not very relevant. It may not be recognized for people who are not in a relationship.Ma is accused of being the head of a rebellion. If so, it can be seen that it is much higher than other accomplices who shared various tasks, so we will judge the concern of destroying evidence by combining these things.
I'll also look at the fear of running away. Concerns about running away are also comprehensively judged by various factors and stipulated in the Supreme Court's court rules. The first is the situation of the crime. This is very important. The first one among them is the seriousness of the crime. In other words, if you have committed a heavy crime, you may run away. If it's a minor offense, you don't have to run away. This is the first standard. But of course, the charges have not been proven and convicted. I hope you can accept it on the premise that I tell you at the investigation stage. Isn't it a crime of rebellion? He's the head of the rebellion. The court sentence is very high.
It's the death penalty, life imprisonment, or life imprisonment. Therefore, these circumstances will be reflected because the charges currently being charged are very heavy. In addition, personal circumstances, family relationships, and social environment are also considered to judge the fear of running away. I won't tell you the details.There is another part to refer to. What I said earlier is about the Supreme Court trial.
And among the regulations of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, there are guidelines for handling arrest and detention. Of course, it's the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit that investigated this and asked for a warrant.There is something to refer to. Among the rules of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, there are guidelines for handling arrest and detention. If you look at this, there's one more thing in the court's judgment criteria for fear of running away. There's one more, and this means more than you think. One more thing to add is whether the investigative agency did not comply with the attendance of the investigative agency without a justifiable reason.
[Anchor]
This time, it is similar to the situation of the president of Yoon Suk Yeol.
[Sonho]
That's right. On the premise that the arrest warrant was legally requested and issued, it is judged that way so far. Why didn't you respond to the legitimate execution of the arrest warrant and the arrest warrant was issued before that? I asked for attendance, but he didn't respond. There is a rule of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office that the prosecution should consider these areas comprehensively and judge them.
If so, we simply exclude feelings about likes and dislikes of the president or his response to the current situation, and we don't judge it by that. I looked at the court's criteria and how the investigative agency judges. I had a chance to take a closer look because the lawyer's position was delayed. Today, the court will decide whether to issue an arrest warrant.
[Anchor]
President Yoon initially said that he would announce at 10 a.m. whether he would attend the arrest examination in person, but the announcement of his position has not yet been made. The interview with the lawyers seems to be delayed and they seem to be worried about something. Earlier, a lawyer who expressed his position that President Yoon would refuse to comply with the warrant review in the Western District Court said, but there was a situation that needed to be considered a little more later. I changed my words like this. What kind of situation is it that needs to be considered? In anticipation.
[Sonho]
There must be a lot of concerns. However, basically, the actual examination of the arrest warrant and the interrogation of the suspect before arrest are for the protection of the suspect's rights. In other words, there is no need to arrest the suspect, right? I don't think I have to arrest him. The judge judges whether it is okay to investigate without detention. If so, it is basically advantageous for the suspect who is the subject of the warrant request to attend and tell his or her situation and express that there is no need for arrest.
However, in the current situation, various precedents and general situations do not seem to apply as they are. There seem to be a number of reasons. Therefore, rather than saying definitively that I will not attend, I think I still leave some room. Because I don't think what we talked about at the stage yesterday was the president's final decision.
[Anchor]
You're saying it without listening to my intentions, right?
[Sonho]
We had an interview yesterday afternoon.Ma was asked for an arrest warrant at 5:40, and there was no negotiation at night on how to respond and how to deal with this strategy on the premise of an arrest warrant. As a result, I think I'll have a hasty interview this morning to coordinate and organize various positions, but I don't know the exact situation.Ma said in the past that lawyer Seok Dong-hyun would not do it at first regarding the request for an arrest suit. But after that, I got to do it and talked about it.
Therefore, if you have several lawyers, you can work together, come up with a lot of ideas, and share roles to do well, but there may be confusion. Among them, there are several lawyers who answer questions from the media. Therefore, even though it is not in a final conclusion and a summarized position, I mentioned the reporters' questions slightly, and it is possible that the mention itself was reported very loudly. Therefore, it is expected that we will finally ask the President's position and reveal his position in a moment on how to deal with it today.
[Anchor]
I think the interview with the president is increasing. It could take a long time to meet the president, right? We can have a long interview, right?
[Sonho]
That's right. Especially by the presumption of innocence, you're not guilty. And you're not in prison. I haven't even been charged. Therefore, since an arrest warrant has been requested, of course, you have to seek assistance from a lawyer and you can receive it. In particular, after an arrest warrant is requested after an arrest, lawyers can meet in person to help and receive help from the suspect's point of view. Even if a person is suddenly arrested, he or she is not brought to the substantive examination center of the arrest warrant and makes a judgment right away, but gives time to respond and prepare various things before then. Another delay in expressing one's admission...
[Anchor]
There's a breaking news that just came in. It's what the police special team said. News has come out that an arrest warrant has been executed for Lee Kwang-woo, the head of the security headquarters. Lee Kwang-woo, the head of the security department, is considered one of the hardliners in the security department. Given that Kim Sung-hoon, deputy head of the security service, who had delayed the execution of the arrest warrant, was arrested after police appearance the previous day, it was expected that Lee's whereabouts would be secured, but when he attended the police this morning, the news was reported that the arrest warrant was executed together.
[Anchor]
When executing the arrest warrant for the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, the police first tried to arrest Lee Kwang-woo and Kim Sung-hoon. However, after the security service was over at the request of the president, I attended the police with a commitment that I would attend the police with my lawyer. It has been reported that an arrest warrant has been executed since attending the police.
Lawyer, as the time for reviewing the arrest warrant for President Yoon approaches, supporters of President Yoon are rallying everywhere, and I just told you about the situation of the Western District Court. I think there was a very intense conflict over there.
[Sonho]
I'm doing a legal analysis from a legal point of view.Ma said, "The fundamental background of this is the president's political actions. And what the president is claiming is that the president's declaration of emergency martial law is based, background, and cause. At the same time, various points and complaints about political actions by opposition parties have been revealed. As a result, support or rejection of this investigation seems to be divided not only by likes or dislikes of the president, but also by various positions on the political party supporting the current political situation.
Therefore, the people who support the president are taking various actions in front of the court building, and because they are all Korean citizens, they can continue to support the president no matter how much he is arrested and is about to be examined for arrest. However, I don't think it should lead to a total rejection of legal proceedings or the judicial system. I'm very concerned about those things. In particular, I think it is possible to block the entry of vehicles or other personnel in front of the government building in a fierce mind and thinking of the president.
But it's technically a criminal offense, and technically, it can be subject to punishment. Of course, all citizens who express this meaning should be punished, and let's make it the subject of judicial review. It's definitely not like this. Rather, I personally think that not doing so helps national unity.
However, if it goes beyond the current situation and leads to more violent and violent acts, it can lead to various pressures or even death threats from the perspective of law enforcement agencies, which can lead to fear and not a fair and objective judgment. Don't tell me you're aiming for those things, but I think it would be good to understand it simply as an expression of anger. I hope various measures will continue so that it does not deepen.
[Anchor]
Rally and demonstration is a guaranteed right for everyone. It's the best way to keep it safe and orderly.
[Sonho]
However, you have to get out of 100 meters. So, what you do right in front of the building is actually a dangerous act legally considered.
[Anchor]
It has not yet been decided whether the president will attend or not after the warrant is opened, but how long after the substantive examination does it usually take for an arrest warrant to be issued?
[Sonho]
In the case of arrested suspects, if an arrest warrant is requested, the regulation says to examine without delay. Therefore, since it was requested yesterday evening, the warrant hearing time has been set for 2 p.m. today. And when all the judgments are made, it is stipulated that he, too, should produce results without delay. However, it is not stipulated that there is no delay within hours, within days, and after hours.
Therefore, it is told to judge as quickly as possible and present the results. In the meantime, given the precedent, I think the results will come out late tonight or early in the morning. Because when we do this a lot, sometimes in the case of large-scale events reported in the media, in the case of major politicians or in the case of major businessmen, the process goes on for 5, 6, 8, 9 hours, and after that, we think a lot about it and the results come out even at late dawn. But that's a very unusual case. There are even a lot of cases that end in five or ten minutes.
And there are also cases where they do that and then collect them and send out the results right before work. But I don't think that can happen today. Of course, the issue itself may not be as complicated as you think, but there are many limitations because you cannot ask directly if the president is not present.If the results come out too soon, haven't they decided the results in advance or haven't made a proper judgment? Or, there may be a point that does not mean that he has only pretended to listen to the president's argument. Therefore, it seems that the judge will make a decision with sufficient time and consideration because it is a very important issue.
[Anchor]
According to the report, Yoon's lawyers, including Kim Hong-il, are interviewing Yoon, and only after the interview is over will the president be able to reveal whether he will attend the warrant review today. The interview seems to be delayed. Accordingly, the announcement of the position seems to be delayed a little more. I'll let you know when I hear the news. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is said to have about six or seven prosecutors attending the warrant, but if the president does not attend, will only the lawyers from President Yoon's side attend?
[Sonho]
There is a possibility that it will happen. In fact, there are cases where only lawyers go when the suspect does not come out. But I've done it without a suspect, but my position is embarrassing. Because an arrest warrant should not be issued. In other words, the allegations are not clarified, or there is no need for arrest. In order to claim that there is no fear of destroying evidence and that there is no fear of running away, it is most effective for the person concerned to speak, in general cases. But if you don't attend, even if you're a lawyer, you're not a party.
In that respect, there seems to be a possibility that the argument will lose strength. First of all, I think it is necessary to briefly look at the general procedure of interrogating the suspect before arrest. It's the order. First of all, the right to refuse to make a statement is notified on the premise that the suspect will attend. The right to refuse to state is notified, followed by the status of recognition. It's to identify who it is. The next step is what is the reason for the arrest as well as the crime stated in the arrest warrant request. I am informing you of this. Then the judge asks the suspect a question.
They will be interrogated, but if the president is not present, they cannot directly interrogate the suspect. In the next step, prosecutors and lawyers continue to state their opinions, and if the president is present, the suspect's opinion is made and finished as the last step, and even if the president is not present, the lawyer can attend and state his or her opinion. These are all in Article 201-1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
And the prosecutor can also attend the interrogation date and state his or her opinion. Therefore, if the president is not present, the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the president's lawyers are expected to come out and express their opinions. Also, the judge will ask the lawyers a number of things, even if they are not the suspects themselves.
To guess, we will examine and judge various materials related to the head of the current charge of the civil war and interrogate him.What was the president thinking and what he did at the time? Also, there are facts stated in the warrant request, so did you really do that, etc. Confirmation is because this issue is so important. I think that's what's needed.
Then, it is better to ask the person concerned about the destruction of evidence or the fear of running away.Ma will also have various procedures to confirm these things with the lawyer, and on the contrary, the prosecutor has been cleared of the charges, and there are various evidence, especially several generals who have been identified as other accomplices and are currently being investigated and prosecuted.
Or the cops. Through these statements and confessions of the allegations, the allegations will be clarified, and various needs should be recognized for the fear of destroying evidence and running away. And another important thing is to interrogate the suspect before arrest.
Then you'll be out of custody again during that period. That's what happened with the arrest of the enemy. So, even in the case of the actual examination of this arrest warrant, the warrant request, investigation documents, and evidence all went to the court at 5:40 p.m. yesterday. It's been registered. The period shall not be inserted into the arrest period from the date of filing with the court until the date of issuing the arrest warrant and returning it to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit.
[Anchor]
If an arrest warrant is issued, as you said, the prosecution and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will consult each other for 10 days and conduct an investigation in principle. That's what I said. If an arrest warrant is not issued, how will the investigation be conducted?
[Sonho]
At this stage, the possibility of dismissal, apart from personal judgment, must be taken into account. Even if it is dismissed, the important thing is the reason for the dismissal. The first step is to look at the calling of the crime. Is there a good reason to think that you committed a crime? If an arrest warrant is not issued because it is not recognized from there in the first place, this will have a huge impact.
Especially from the court's point of view, it's an assumption that the crime hasn't even been explained by the head of the rebellion at this stage.It's... In that case, there will be a huge, huge change. However, that is not the case, but the clarification of the crime is recognized. I could be the leader of a civil war. However, at this stage, there is no fear of destroying evidence. Also, there is no fear of running away. If so, the request for an arrest warrant may be dismissed from that point of view because the investigation should be conducted without detention.
In this case, the investigation is conducted without detention. In addition, if that happens, it usually acknowledges the charges or expresses its position to cooperate with the investigation in the future, but whether it will be done in the current situation. Or even if they promised to do so, various confusion that will occur if they do not cooperate will also be the reason for the court's important judgment.
[Anchor]
I see. So far, I have pointed out legal issues related to the examination of President Yoon's arrest warrant with lawyer Sohn Soo-ho. 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- [Breaking News] Police build a road wall in front of the Western District Court and control it completely.
- [Breaking News] President Yoon was sitting in court in a suit.
- [Breaking News] President Yoon's warrant review begins.
- [Breaking News] President Yoon's supporters block the road in front of the Western District Court.
![[Breaking News] President Yoon's legal advisor Seok Dong-hyun arrives at the Western District Court.](https://image.ytn.co.kr/general/jpg/2025/0118/202501181218084807_h.jpg)
![[Breaking News] Investigation prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, including Cha Jung-hyun, arrives at the Western District Court.](https://image.ytn.co.kr/general/jpg/2025/0118/202501181236372391_h.jpg)
![[Focus Y] There's a reason for Lee Junhyuk's "Golden Age"...a sample of an atmospheric star](https://image.ytn.co.kr/general/jpg/2025/0118/202501180800013642_h.jpg)
![[Yetterview] "I solved my thirst for the stage".ONEUS, who finished "Rotalking", went head-to-head in "Seven Years of Magic."](https://image.ytn.co.kr/general/jpg/2025/0117/202501171745398039_h.jpg)
