President Yoon's warrant hearing is over...What's the court's decision?

■ Host: Anchor Cho Jin-hyuk, anchor Hwang Seo-yeon
■ Starring: Choi Soo-young, political critic, Cha Jae-won, special professor at Busan Catholic University

* 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]
The court continues to agonize over whether President Yoon will be arrested. Let's talk with Choi Soo-young, a political critic, and Cha Jae-won, a special professor at Busan Catholic University. Welcome. I'll continue my conversation with you two a while ago. First of all, critic, there will be two decisions in a little while: rejection or citation. What is the political response expected depending on the results?

[Choi Soo-young]
It's going to be intense. If it is rejected, the Democratic Party of Korea will be very opposed to it, and if it is cited next, why should the president be investigated in custody from the perspective of the power of the people? I think they'll say that it's the principle of an investigation without detention. But as for me, in the realm of justice, the president has an arrest warrant, an arrest warrant has been issued, and then the arrest warrant has been issued, and the rejection and citation of the arrest warrant, so when we go into the realm of justice, the excessive things that politics imposes are aftereffects.
So I think the Constitutional Court hearing ends with one track. Then, the president is finally at the crossroads of whether it is an arrest investigation or not, and it is not this time whether he is actually guilty of rebellion or not guilty. That's why, at least now, major related workers have been indicted and put on trial, so will the president be investigated in custody or without detention? Since it is a simple matter, I think the political circles need to refrain from making a brief comment, or if Yeouido politics intervenes too much, our democracy could face such criticism that politics can damage democracy even more. Of course, we will think about the political and partisan interests of each party and make strategic plans, but if the political circles surface this and send a direct message to the public, the politics divided into the camp may become more confusing.

[Anchor]
You were wary of the violent reaction or intervention of the political community. Then, how will the supporters react depending on the results of the review?

[Choi Soo-young]
I think it will probably intensify to the point where it is a little unpredictable. Even so, just being reviewed today is actually enough to paralyze the front of the Seoul Western District Court, and the protests in front of the Seoul Detention Center are still fierce, and if it is dismissed or issued, a number of huge aftermaths are expected, but I am. But let me tell you again, this is not the realm of justice that distinguishes between guilt and innocence, but whether it is investigated and tried in personal detention. Since it is only the difference between whether or not, the investigation has not been carried out properly and the trial has not even begun because the trial has not yet begun, but it will not be easy to manage emotions about them. Nevertheless, even if we have such a fierce mind here, supporters should refrain from pouring into the streets or mobilizing physical actions and violence, since the first trial or the justification of the judgment is taken into account when the judgment is made later. It's the same for and against.

[Anchor]
I'll ask you the same question. A little while ago, the critic said that regardless of the outcome, the political community should show a moderation attitude with respect to the judicial power, and I think we can summarize that we should refrain from overly stimulating our supporters, but will the professor agree?

[Borrowing]
In principle, you said the right thing. In fact, that aspect is clearly what we lacked, so in fact, it is necessary for the political community to accept whatever the outcome of this time and take it as an opportunity to look back on their political actions. However, once the warrant is issued, I think President Yoon literally lost 10 games. According to the previous report, if an arrest warrant is issued, it will be 10 and 10 losses, so if this is a situation where even 10 mouths can no longer be said, the problem will be quite politically difficult for the people who have defended and protected President Yoon Suk Yeol. If so, I think there is a high possibility that there will be internal voices on differentiating from President Yoon Suk Yeol. On the other hand, if it's issued by the Democratic Party, I'd say it's probably a must-have. Of course, the related trial will be prosecuted in the future and the trial will go accordingly, but the problem is that the impeachment trial related to the suspension of President Yoon's duties is likely to be cited in the future, and it is likely that the National Assembly will join forces to quickly remove President Yoon from office through the National Assembly's prosecution. On the other hand, if this is rejected, I think it will inevitably have a considerable aftermath, and of course, political battles are important, but there is a high possibility that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will be in a very difficult position. It is highly likely that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will go to a situation where it is virtually difficult to conduct an investigation. If the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is unable to exercise its investigative rights, the Democratic Party of Korea will likely strongly pressure Acting President Choi Sang-mok on the promulgation of the bill on the Special Prosecutors' Office for Insurrection, which was passed on the previous day, while the best excuse to use is that the warrant has been rejected. If so, it is highly likely to make considerable resistance stronger from the perspective of the public regarding the special prosecution law for civil war, so the battle between the ruling and opposition parties over the special prosecution for civil war will inevitably intensify, and I think one point of view is how the votes will diverge in the process of re-decision.

[Anchor]
But we're showing you the subtitles right now.Ma is in a situation where some of the police have been injured as the protests of President Yoon Suk Yeol's supporters have become fierce. Regardless of the results of today's warrant review, it seems that it can be highlighted as a responsibility of the president of Yoon Suk Yeol and the ruling party, what do you think?

[Choi Soo-young]
Of course, those who raise the theory of responsibility may want to spread it to the entire passport. In fact, when supporters of President Yoon visited his residence and said that he should defend President Yoon Suk Yeol, members of the People's Power visited him or said that he should form a human chain together with him, but in fact, in today's case, people who attended the so-called Gwanghwamun rally came and then it should be viewed as a voluntary rally, so I think we should hold the police accountable for the aspect of violence afterwards, but with this, it spread to the entire ruling party, as if the entire ruling party is behind it. But I don't think it's appropriate for them to say this because in terms of the impeachment trial, there was martial law on December 3rd, and the speed of the investigation was very fast, and even though there was no investigation right, there was a controversy over receiving warrants through bypass, warrant shopping, and there was a controversy over the legitimacy of the investigation and some bias in the investigation process, so I think supporters are protesting this.
And even though the Central District Court, of course, the arrest warrant, was rejected, but even though there was a preemptive clause that the Central District Court should do it, they came to the Western District Court by applying the exception clause in the rear, so I think those things exploded in front of the Western District Court today with more anger and protest. In any case, I'm not advocating violence or simply not, but I'm willing to take it seriously at least once for the fact that these people have expressed such protests, but I'm not going to use violence on this part, prosecutors at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, Whether to obstruct investigators and then to assault, I think this should be dealt with sternly after the fact, but there are constant talks about why they came to the Western District Court and voiced resistance, so from the perspective of the justice department on the legitimacy of the law, it is necessary to look back on these parts, but I don't think this is a matter that will spread to the entire ruling party and hold accountability.

[Anchor]
You pointed out the reason for the protest. However, amid the escalation, some argue that order needs to be maintained. What do you think, professor?

[Borrower]
Of course. In fact, the maintenance of order is that even considering the national image of the Republic of Korea, these unsavory conflicts between supporters and conflicts with public authorities are really being used all over the world in real time. If you look at it from that point of view, can the Republic of Korea be able to rule the law? This is the biggest key to determining the country's credibility in the future.
In that respect, I think the attitude of one person, President Yoon, is really wrong. What did you say on your way to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit after the last arrest warrant was executed? We asked for support and support for patriotic citizens. And was it yesterday? In the detention center, I'm uncomfortable, but I'm doing well, but the patriotic citizens who are struggling outside in this cold weather talk about the burning patriotism and the people who support them as if they are citizens. As you may remember now, in the past, when the impeachment motion was passed and dismissed, it was customary for former President Park Geun Hye to send a message of unity, a message of unity, that the people should go to their main job and work hard, first of all. But now, President Yoon says that the people he talks to the end are only talking about the people who support him. In particular, the execution of the arrest warrant and the appearance of the warrant this time are the reasons why the judicial system of the Republic of Korea collapsed. Why did this judicial system collapse when you were in power, even though you were a lifelong prosecutor who played an important role in the judicial system and the parts where the rule of law has been in place since the government was established in the so-called left-wing judicial system? If that is true, it is right to reflect on one's mistakes first, and I think the biggest problem is the words and actions that encourage many of one's supporters to disagree with the conclusion by legitimate legal order by talking like this as if they were telling someone else's story.

[Anchor]
Now, in order to maintain order for citizens, both political circles seem to agree that it is necessary to send a message with a calm mind. I'll also ask you a question about the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act. It passed the National Assembly with the Democratic Party of Korea, which has reduced its size without foreign exchange charges, and the people's power said it would immediately propose the exercise of veto power to Acting President Choi Sang-mok. The Democratic Party of Korea says it has made concessions. What do you think, critic?

[Choi Soo-young]
I made concessions in appearance, but if I look at the contents, I didn't. Because it excluded foreign exchange charges, but the special prosecutor said he could investigate all the issues that were revealed during the investigation. So if a foreign exchange comes out while the special prosecutor is investigating, he can investigate the foreign exchange crime. That's why I didn't put any restrictions on it, so I said I could brief you on the whole case. So, in fact, we should not announce the charges, and even if the Democratic Party says so, it will be briefed on this matter from time to time. If so, this can be interpreted very politically in their favor. In that respect, I'm saying that the actual concession was taken, but I didn't. Then, even if the independent counsel bill is announced next week, it will take 20 days. If it takes 20 days, it will have to be in mid-February at the earliest, even if the law is passed and implemented without exercising its veto next week. If so, we will be prosecuted next week. Depending on whether or not President Yoon's arrest warrant is issued today, if the investigation speeds up, the trial will be possible as early as February 10. By the way, will the special prosecutor enter this investigation, which is possible on February 10th? And under our current law, double prosecution of the same case and person is impossible.
Then, if President Yoon prosecutes and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit enters the investigation, the special prosecutor cannot prosecute it under our current law. Then why would you do this special investigation? What kind of rebellion is this? Therefore, if you can't prosecute the charge of rebellion even though you're a special prosecutor for rebellion, this is rather a political special prosecutor. In that respect, I believe that the power of the people should be vetoed by acting chief executive Choi Sang-mok. As Professor Cha said earlier, if an arrest warrant is not issued this time, it will be dismissed and tried without detention. Then the Democratic Party will. I can't trust the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, I can't trust everyone. Then, it will come out to do a special investigation. Then, if you simply take out all the toxic provisions, you might not know, but even if I give up 100 times, the investigation is already conducted without detention, but even if it is being conducted as one track, this effectiveness will actually disappear. In that respect, a special prosecutor is an investigation conducted by politics when it is difficult or insufficient to investigate, but this is a way to push the pace of the investigation as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the police, and the prosecution compete, and now the related workers have all the evidence revealed in one day, so it can only be interpreted as a strategy for the Democratic Party to lay a groundwork for the early presidential election.

[Anchor]
First of all, the revised Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act passed the plenary session of the National Assembly. As you just pointed out, the foreign exchange crime has been excluded, but it remains that related cases, that is, cognitive cases, are included. How did the professor see this part?

[Borrowing]
I think there is an inevitable aspect. In fact, it may be best to have a limited case, but there must be a number of controversial parts that have not been recognized in the process of making the special prosecution law. That's why I think it's necessary to investigate the cases that the special prosecutor perceives in the process of investigating. And it's not something that can be done indefinitely. So, according to the Special Prosecutor Act, the investigation schedule was originally set from 130 days to 100 days, so this is not an all-year investigation. And the size of the investigation team has also been reduced a lot. In the case of the previous special prosecution law, there is a clear aspect of giving some leeway to investigations related to cognition and making the special prosecution law, and in fact, the public's power proposed its own special prosecution law. However, I think the problem is that the people's power was ultimately done to build their own defense wall to prevent the party from breaking away from the party during the first independent counsel law. As it is, the political intention to try and delay the independent counsel law led by the opposition party in any way was revealed this time. In this situation, you said that the Special Prosecutor Act cannot prosecute additionally, but what is the most decisive reason? I think one of the reasons for the special prosecution is the independence of the subject of the investigation. In fact, the prosecution, the police, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit are competing with each other, but the question now is who has the right to investigate. There are also controversies over jurisdiction issues and such. In fact, the most important thing is that the special prosecutor does not pay attention to power and that it is power, which is the main body of the investigation that can do not only the current presidential power but also the opposition's legislative power without paying attention. So, the right to recommend the special prosecutor was originally intended to be exercised alone by the opposition party, but this time, it is supposed to be recommended by a third party and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If so, in fact, if the prosecution continues to prosecute as the public claims, for example, if there is an early presidential election, for example, the opposition party is likely to win, the prosecution organization itself could be quite dangerous.
If so, there is certainly an aspect that the prosecution is likely to look at the opposition party and maintain the investigation or prosecution accordingly. There's also that aspect of concern. However, if a third-party special prosecutor appears and the special prosecutor conducts the final investigation and maintains the indictment, wouldn't it be less likely that the special prosecutor will push ahead with the investigation in a way favorable to a certain faction in the face of the presidential election? I tell you that you need to think about that aspect.

[Anchor]
You mean that an independent counsel is essential for independence from the administration. How did you like it, critic?

[Choi Soo-young]
If an independent counsel is introduced and implemented while the investigation is almost in progress, it is an investigation that cannot be prosecuted, but is the investigation really bound to go sideways? As the three investigative agencies compete, the prosecution will eventually take over all the investigative rights and prosecutions and file a prosecution to proceed with the trial, but would the independent counsel that follows only be able to clean up the mess and take sides?
In that respect, and usually, the special prosecution came out before the prosecution of the key investigation targets.
There has never been a case of introducing a special prosecutor after being indicted. So this is only going to be completely back-and-forth or a late train? The trial has already proceeded quickly, and the Constitutional Court will proceed with the hearing quickly with the question of the president's position, but then what is the point of the independent counsel's investigation into the rest of this matter? As a result, the independent counsel cannot prosecute for core acts of rebellion. There is no choice but to come up with an independent counsel for the independent counsel, and there is no choice but to come up with an independent counsel for the independent counsel. In that respect, I think the Democratic Party of Korea will be a very big variable in whether to execute an arrest warrant for the special prosecutor, of course, against the president. However, I think the Democratic Party will become more isolated at a time when the Democratic Party is being shunned by various middlemen and very isolated polls are coming out, and the Democratic Party will fall into self-immolation no matter how much they put forward as the independent counsel's party.

[Anchor]
However, the People's Power said it would propose the right to request reconsideration to Acting President Choi, but in fact, the unconstitutional provision pointed out by Acting President Choi was revised. Then, what choice will be made by acting Choi Sang-mok?

[Choi Soo-young]
Acting authority Choi Sang-mok set another condition with the exclusion of unconstitutional parts, an agreement between the ruling and opposition parties. The ruling and opposition parties haven't reached an agreement. At least I was a little neutral now to make the so-called special prosecutor's recommendation on this part, of course. However, you can do everything about the investigation, briefings can be held from time to time, and the special prosecutor cannot keep up with the pace of the investigation, and it is impossible for me to keep up with the pressure on the acting president, and Trump will take office next week. But will you shake the fact that we've barely settled down for about three weeks with the acting supreme leader system? Then, in order to lead the country stably, Choi, who can't even hold a summit with Trump, should not allow a single variable, and I think the Democratic Party is on its own path to defeat by calling for impeachment against Choi.

[Anchor]
I'll stop listening to you two. It was with Choi Soo-young, a political critic, and Cha Jae-won, a special professor at Busan Catholic University. Thank you.