The first ever arrest of a sitting president...the president's "anti-constitutional"

■ Host: Anchor Lee Ha-rin, Anchor Jung Ji-woong
■ Starring: Lawyer Seo Jeong-bin

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

[Anchor]
The first ever arrest of a sitting president in constitutional history. Let me check with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Welcome. If you look at the reason for the issuance of the warrant issued early this morning, it stated the concern of destroying evidence. Did the part where you changed your phone and deleted your Telegram work effectively?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Of course, this part is written in the warrant claim requested by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, especially in relation to concerns about the destruction of evidence. So, of course, I would have considered this part, but the most important thing for the court was that the charges were fairly accepted and that the charges were quite serious. The charges in question are one of the most severely punished crimes under the current law of rebellion. That's why if evidence has been collected enough to admit the charges, it immediately leads to the possibility of destroying evidence or fleeing. Therefore, things like deleting Telegram or changing mobile phones may have been considered, but most importantly, I think the warrant was issued after recognizing that a considerable amount of serious charges were proven.

[Anchor]
To tell you a little more about the charges, isn't the charge of being the head of a rebellion specified among the crimes of rebellion? So, it can be said that the most serious of the crimes of rebellion has become serious, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Although the crime of rebellion itself is a very serious crime, it can be divided into roles and sentenced, and the most important thing is, of course, to face the most serious charge if you are charged with the head. Therefore, I think this was one of the important factors to judge because the court eventually judged that this was proven to a considerable extent because it was accused of rebellion, especially the head of the group, in issuing this warrant.

[Anchor]
If you look closely at the reasons for requesting a warrant from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, it declared an unconstitutional and illegal emergency even though it was not a wartime incident or a similar emergency, isn't this part? In response to this, the president refuted that it was a national emergency due to the successive impeachment of the State Council members. After all, it didn't play a major role, did it?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. Whether the declaration of martial law was legal or consistent with the Constitution, the contents that President Yoon has claimed so far. It seems that he once again insisted on whether the reason was recognized in the warrant review. But in the end, the court didn't acknowledge this, which is actually a rebuttal in that it's a wartime, incident, or a similar national emergency that could be a reason for martial law.

[Anchor]
This time, President Yoon attended in person. There is also an analysis that different judges from the two previous judges who issued arrest warrants conducted a warrant review and attended like this, so what do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, the opinion that he would not attend from the beginning was dominant, and I thought so, too. Because the Western District Court has already issued arrest warrants, and the Central District Court has rejected President Yoon's application in an arrest suit. If so, I will not attend the warrant hearing in the Western District Court. If you attend, isn't it contrary to the attitude that has been questioning the jurisdiction of the Western District Court? That's why I thought I wouldn't attend, but I ended up attending. As you said when you thought about what the reasons were, two judges in charge of warrants issued warrants in the Western District Court before, but this time, it seems that the possibility is higher because a new judge, not a warrant judge, examines the warrant.

I think they would have considered that much. Another possibility is that even if the warrant is likely to be issued in the end, the president, who has not shown himself in front of the public so far, has not shown himself, but has attempted to rally his supporters by showing the process of attending the court. I think you can think of this as being present with that in mind.

[Anchor]
We don't know exactly what the president said yesterday when he attended the meeting, but considering what the president has said so far, first of all, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit issued an illegal martial law decree banning the political activities of the National Assembly. I think he is taking this as an important issue. In response to this, the President said in the Dec. 12 statement that he only put in the least number of unarmed troops, didn't he refute it like this? This part was also not accepted by the court, can we see it like this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think so. First of all, the important contents of the evidence submitted by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit were eventually submitted as evidence by those who appeared to be involved. It can be said that the indictment also pointed out the facts confirmed by various evidences, but in the end, the indictment contains such things as live ammunition and instructions from the president. As a result, it is difficult for the court to believe the claim that there was no preparation or direct order for live ammunition, rather than President Yoon's claim, and it can be said that the charges of rebellion are quite proven, as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit claims.

[Anchor]
With the issuance of the arrest warrant this time, the president has continued to argue that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have investigative power or is not under the jurisdiction of the Western District Court, and that it should be through the Central District Court. Can these two arguments be seen as more unconvincing?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, I think it can be evaluated as having lost considerable persuasion. From the moment the Central District Court already dismissed President Yoon's claim in an arrest suit, this part seems to have lost considerable persuasion. Furthermore, it can be evaluated that the warrant has lost considerable persuasive power as the warrant has been issued. Nevertheless, President Yoon is expected to continue these arguments. This is because it is an important part of the argument from the beginning, and when I think about the trial in the future, this is a key part of President Yoon's defense strategy. In particular, if you continue to point out the illegality of the jurisdiction and enforcement of the warrant and claim that the evidence collected based on the warrant continues to be illegal, then you will add a claim if a number of evidence capabilities are not recognized. In the end, this part seems to be a fairly major defense strategy in conducting the overall trial, so it can be evaluated that it has lost its persuasion, but we expect that these arguments will continue to be strongly carried out in the future.

[Anchor]
You said you lost your persuasion. However, the president pointed out that he would continue the same argument. As you said, the president made a position, saying that the issuance of the arrest warrant is anti-constitutional and anti-lawful. If so, it will take another long time for this trial to reach the Supreme Court, so will this continue to be a problem in the process?

[Jeongbin Seo]
According to the contents, the president declared emergency martial law to appeal the situation of the national emergency crisis as part of the exercise of emergency rights under the constitution, and investigative agencies and courts cannot evaluate it. They said that arresting the president who has to attend the impeachment trial for destruction of evidence has a problem of anti-constitution and anti-judicialism. This is also a criticism of the judiciary itself. These arguments are likely to continue. Because, in the end, anti-constitution and anti-lawism are problematic in themselves to evaluate the president's ruling behavior. This cannot be evaluated, and to make concessions, the evaluation itself should be refrained. It's read as an argument like this. If so, it is expected that the court will continue to argue that it cannot evaluate martial law declaration in the remaining judicial proceedings and that it should refrain from evaluating it. So I don't think there will be any change in the strategy.

[Anchor]
For the first time in constitutional history, an incumbent president is being arrested. Didn't President Yoon's side request an arrest suit earlier? Then, it should be considered that there is a high possibility of requesting a binding appeal again this time.

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think so. Of course, it is very unlikely that binding pride will be cited. In particular, with a warrant issued like this, it is very unlikely that the previously issued warrant will be judged inappropriate because it cannot be expected that there will be a special change in circumstances. So, given the possibility, it may not be possible to seek a binding appeal, but in light of his actions so far, President Yoon has used all legally possible means of objection. If so, it is expected that he will seek an arrest suit this time, and on the other hand, President Yoon will believe that the public sentiment is very important whether it is a criminal case or an impeachment trial. If so, wouldn't they think it's a place where they appeal to the supporters to gather after going through the objection process once again? If so, I think it can eventually lead to these claims.

[Anchor]
The arrest was made on the 15th. And when you set the arrest deadline, you're calculating from the 15th. So people say it's a maximum of 20 days. You have to take out the time it took to be arrested earlier, and if you ask for an arrest suit, you have to take out the time to request an arrest suit, and if you do that, the deadline will be delayed a lot.

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, the time spent on the court's examination is excluded, so if you calculate it, it is expected that it will increase by two more days.

[Anchor]
Now that you've been arrested, how will the next detention process proceed?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Until now, President Yoon was staying in the waiting room for a suspect. However, if he is arrested, he has to move to Suyong-dong because he has to move, and considering former President Park's precedent in the past, it seems that he will have to stay in a room living alone with about 3 pyeong. And so far, President Yoon has been known to have lived in a suit, but now in a situation where he is arrested, he has to change into a prison uniform, and on the other hand, physical examinations are conducted precisely before proceeding, and these procedures are carried out.

[Anchor]
You know the mug shot that's often said. The mugshot will actually be taken by the president, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. We will take pictures like the list of detainees, and I don't know if it's going on now, but it is expected that such pictures will be taken and so-called mug shots will continue.

[Anchor]
We can prevent contact with other inmates, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Although there is a security problem, since he is an incumbent president, he will try to avoid encountering or contacting other prisoners as much as possible. Therefore, I think that directors and officials will continue in the future in such a situation where the Seoul Detention Center has blocked all contact that may occur while the employees are managing it.

[Anchor]
I have to go to the Constitutional Court for a trial in the future and I don't know whether I will respond to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or not, but shouldn't I go if I get an Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit investigation? In that case, will the security level be maintained?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Of course, I understand that when he was arrested by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit before and attended, he was still moved to a security vehicle, but since then, the security agency and the Ministry of Justice have coordinated some security issues. The security agency has been seen as a position that it should continue its existing level of security. In the end, the Ministry of Justice has jurisdiction over the Seoul Detention Center against the president under the current circumstances, so it is difficult to recognize the security agency's performance as before, so that it is not much different from other prisoners. In other words, employees of the Ministry of Justice are mainly in charge of moving or performing so that there is no difference in the basic aspect.

[Anchor]
In the case of arrest, I heard that the president and other buildings have security officials. What will happen to that part?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think this part will also be maintained. As you said, I understand that the security office originally wanted to be closer to the security office, but the Ministry of Justice expressed reluctance to that point, so I understand that about the life of the security office staff were working while waiting in the office building. However, since the president has to move to Suyeong-dong rather than the waiting room, I think the security service staff will also wait and manage the camp in the office building in the existing way, considering that they cannot enter the camp according to the existing security method.

[Anchor]
This time, we will also look at the situation at dawn today. When President Yoon's arrest was confirmed, supporters broke into the Western District Court at dawn, broke down furniture, and went on a rampage. Please explain it to me.

[Jeongbin Seo]
I checked on the news on the way here, but as you said, when the warrant for President Yoon was decided, some of the protesters near the Western District Court eventually broke into the Western District Court, broke the outer wall, broke the window, and even broke into the interior, causing confusion. In this regard, the police also tried to enter and suppress it in the early stages, but it took a considerable amount of time. During that time, the inside continued to vandalize and yell at objects in the court.

[Anchor]
We're showing you on the screen. It shows you breaking windows with a blunt instrument. It's hard to believe that this is happening inside the court itself, but the report shows that the police shield has been taken away. It is said that he assaulted police officers with police shields or light sticks and threw cigarette ashtray and garbage. In addition, some say that the barricade collapsed without hesitation and fire extinguishers were fired at the police as they pushed the police with abusive language. We're continuing to show you the picture, but we're forcing the door shutters up. There are reports that supporters who stormed in this way threw fire extinguishers and smashed court windows and furniture at random. He also went out to find where Cha Eun-kyung, the senior judge who issued the warrant, was. Fortunately, Cha was not in the courthouse at the time. Eventually, the outer wall of the court building was also torn off due to this disturbance. You can also see YouTubers broadcasting in real time. We continue to show you the inside of the court.

[Anchor]
We're watching an incredible video together, and during the news session earlier, we connected a reporter, and some bloodstains were found. So it looks like some kind of accident happened in a riot situation. Of course, you can be free to express your opinion, but isn't it quite a big problem to raid the court like this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. I've never seen a scene like this before. As you said, you can give different opinions and criticize the court's ruling or the judge. However, such a form would be to express one's intention through a protest or rally, for example, but the situation in which a large number of people broke into the court, damaged things, and created physical conflicts with the dispatched police was difficult to predict today and it seems to be unprecedented. As a lawyer, I often visit the court, and I never thought this could happen.

Sometimes in the past, the problem was that individuals were dissatisfied with their rulings and made a fuss in court, or in serious cases, they cleared the court and used violence. As in the current situation, it is a shocking situation to see dozens or hundreds of people break into the court and create a violent situation.

[Anchor]
We also broke the news earlier, but we broke the news that the police have booked 86 people and are conducting a distributed investigation into 18 police stations. The police also seem to be responding strongly. It is said that they have set up an investigation team led by the head of the investigation department of the Seoul Metropolitan Government. In front of the Western District Court, 11 police departments are investigating those arrested on charges of obstructing the execution of public affairs, abusing, and obstructing vehicles of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit during the rally. Seven criminal departments are investigating 46 people who were arrested earlier. It seems that an additional 40 people have been booked. And once again, I would like to announce the breaking news that 17 units of the police task force have been deployed around the Western District Court to ensure full safety and secure two-way traffic to Mapo-daero. Lawyer, what law can I be punished for damaging a court property like this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Since many are using violence like this, it can be a crime of necessity. In the case of the crime of need, it is punished in the case of creating a violence with the power of group multiplication. On the other hand, since many people have invaded, there may be a problem of intrusion into special buildings. In addition, if you damage or damage other items, it is a crime of damage to public goods.

Furthermore, it can be seen as a situation where physical force was exercised against court employees or dispatched police, so if it is a group and multiple, special public affairs execution obstruction can be established, and if a public official is injured in the process, a crime of obstruction of special public affairs can be established.

[Anchor]
If you look at the screen, the shocking damage to the outer wall is quite wide. Who will pay for the restoration in this case?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In this case, if the court is able to identify the people who eventually damaged these things, it can claim damages. And the method of specifying is that more than 80 people have been arrested, and the charges are identified against these people, and then the court can claim damages against these people because they can be specific.

[Anchor]
I can't believe the video itself. The walls are broken and the windows are broken.

[Anchor]
You can also see the air conditioner outdoor unit falling off. Even after breaking it like this, the powder didn't go away, but it continues to damage the outer wall.

[Anchor]
Some of the protesters have turned into rioters, but I think we've just heard something about it.

[Anchor]
We'll tell you the news that just came in first and continue the conversation. Breaking news has been heard that the prosecution has rejected the arrest warrant for Kim Sung-hoon, deputy chief of the security service, which was requested by the police. Earlier, I told you that the police requested an arrest warrant for Kim Sung-hoon, deputy chief of the security service, who is accused of obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol. In response, there was a breaking news that the prosecution rejected the arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
He's one of the hardliners in the security service. Deputy Manager Kim is on the 3rd. The high-ranking government official's criminal investigation office and the prosecution are accused of preventing the police from executing the arrest warrant for President Yoon. When Deputy Chief Kim refused to comply with the request for attendance three times, the police received an arrest warrant and attempted to arrest Deputy Chief Kim at the same time on the 15th. With Deputy Chief Kim promising to attend without being arrested at the time, the police executed an arrest warrant after the day of President Yoon's arrest and immediately after Deputy Chief Kim appeared in the police investigation on the morning of the day before yesterday.

[Anchor]
Deputy Chief Kim also said that he only performed his duties while attending the police. We report the breaking news that the police applied for an arrest warrant, but the prosecution rejected it. Lawyer, if you look at this news, then in the eyes of the prosecution, it is not enough to arrest the deputy head of the security service, did they see it like this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The specific reason should be seen, but in the end, it seems that the arrest requirements have not been sufficiently explained. For example, given that attendance is promised, attendance can be made properly in the future compared to the past. Therefore, the prosecution may have judged that there are relatively few concerns about running away. On the other hand, for example, given the evidence prepared by the police, it is believed that it has not been sufficiently explained in connection with the obstruction of the execution of special public affairs by Deputy Security Minister Kim Sung-hoon. There are also these positions. So, we need to see the details, but in the end, it seems that we were not ready enough to request an arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
Isn't the investigation of the entire security service itself a part that can lose power?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think that's possible. Kim Sung-hoon, the deputy head of security, is said to have been very active as a hardliner in the execution of the first warrant. Since the arrest warrant for the command at the top of Kim Sung-hoon's deputy head of security has been rejected for now, it seems that the investigation into the other command below has also lost its power.

[Anchor]
Since the resignation of Park Jong-joon, the head of the security service, he has been cooperating with the investigation considerably. Kim Sung-hoon, deputy head of the security service, has also been cooperating with the investigation since the president was arrested. In this situation, the security service did not prevent the second arrest of the president. With that in mind, I also think that the arrest may have been rejected. What do you think?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think I can think about that, too. If the second warrant was executed, but there was a significant physical conflict in the process, and there was a collective backlash from the security service staff, it would have been more likely to seek an arrest warrant for the deputy chief of security in the current situation. However, as you said, in the second execution, the security service staff responded to the execution quite a bit, so considering that, there was a backlash in the first execution, but the fact that the security service was cooperative in the second execution and the recent situation may have been considered an important factor in determining whether to seek an arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
Some people are classified as remaining hardliners. For example, Kim Shin, the head of the family, is asking the police to appear, and this investigation will continue, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. I think there is only a difference between this method of continuing the investigation through forced recruitment or through voluntary attendance. Therefore, in the case of other headquarters, the police may apply for a warrant in the future, but if there are no more warrant applications, I think they will induce voluntary attendance and continue the investigation in that way if they come out cooperatively rather than forced recruitment.

[Anchor]
Lee Kwang-woo, the head of the security headquarters, was also investigated after an arrest warrant was executed. It's the same, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think so. Of course, depending on the extent to which the police have collected evidence on their charges, they can request an arrest warrant for someone after the arrest warrant, and they can do so, but in the end, the arrest warrant for the deputy head of the security department was first arrested, but if they cooperate with the investigation, it is expected that the arrest warrant will be delayed or the investigation will be conducted in a voluntary manner.

[Anchor]
Didn't the security guard prevent the execution of the warrant when President Yoon executed the first arrest warrant on January 3rd? At that time, there was an opinion of the joint newspaper that if you prevent it like that, you can be punished for obstructing the execution of public affairs, but it seems to contradict that part.

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, what has come out now about the first execution is that the request for an arrest warrant was rejected and the application was rejected, but that does not mean that the prosecution has judged that the charges are not admitted. Therefore, as you said, in the first execution section, of course, the joint investigation will continue to investigate the allegation that this is a obstruction of the execution of special public affairs, and there will be no change in this and it is difficult to say that it is contradictory.

[Anchor]
Let's take a look at the previous rampage at the Seoul Western District Court. We showed you the scene where the outer wall of the provincial government building was torn off and pointed out what crimes we could be punished for.

[Anchor]
I'll give you one more breaking news.

[Anchor]
The court administration has received a news report expressing concern and strong regret over the intrusion into the Western District Court, so I'm sending you a message first. The court administration strongly criticized the total denial of the rule of law as a serious challenge. He said that the intrusion should never happen and be unacceptable, that thorough fact-checking and strict legal responsibility should follow.

[Anchor]
We were talking about it earlier, but we'll continue to talk about the rampage in front of the Western District Court. Wouldn't it be difficult to specify because various citizens committed illegal activities in front of the local law, but there were too many people and they occurred at the same time?

[Jeongbin Seo]
There is such a problem, but now when the police are dispatched to suppress it like this, they use body cameras and shoot all the scenes through separate evidence equipment. So the more than 80 people arrested on the spot won't have any special problems. Looking at the filming in this process, the people identified there will be clearly identified, and the scene alone will not be able to specify who it is, but if related evidence is collected, it is expected that the investigation will proceed afterwards.

[Anchor]
I told you earlier as a breaking news, but the court administration said it would respond strongly. We will have to investigate later, but if there is a person who led the riot, how can we see the punishment for such a person?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Usually, when predicting punishment, it is questioned whether the person has a similar history in the past or another criminal history even if they are not similar in the past, so it is very difficult to predict, but in this case, even if a person has no history in the past, I think it is a serious crime that can be sentenced to prison. Above all, it is a serious problem that the court is the subject of acts close to rioting. In the end, this court is a place to maintain judicial order, and it is inevitably judged that there was a riot that exercised this level of lethargy against it as a serious violation of the jurisdiction. Therefore, those who actively acted here and those who saw that they were involved to some extent will be considered seriously enough to be sentenced to prison. That's what I think.

[Anchor]
We're showing you the screen. To summarize today's situation, President Yoon's supporters raised the door shutters and stormed and threw fire extinguishers, damaging court windows and fixtures. As the supporters' resistance intensified, the police deployed a task force equipped with riot gear and police uniforms, mobilizing a total of 1,400 people. So most of the protesters inside and outside the court were suppressed at around 6 a.m. Supporters said they also threatened reporters outside. They say they took away the camera memory chip as well. This part can be punished, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
This part can also be punished. Simply put, assault can be established, and robbery or coercion can be established if memory cards or objects are taken away. In particular, in this situation, it seems that it is not a light situation to exercise physical power against reporters working in media companies. These circumstances will also be considered to some extent in future investigations and trials, and if they are specified and the investigation proceeds, I think there will be light punishment for this.

[Anchor]
Of course, those who caused human and material damage should be punished, but other than this, we told you earlier, but it is said that they once entered the third floor of the court and occupied some spaces. Is it possible to punish for invading and occupying space like this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Even in this case, it is punished for invading special buildings and invading special housing. Since a group or multiple people have invaded the building like this, special people can be attached to it in addition to normal building intrusion and punished further. As you said, the fact that special building intrusion was established from the moment you entered and stayed inside for a considerable period of time is unfavorable when considering how long the crime was related to sentencing.

[Anchor]
We continue to show you the intrusion inside. supporters who stormed the door shutters It is said that he also found where Cha Eun-kyung, the senior judge who issued the warrant, is. It is also heard that the YouTuber, who was filming all the scenes of the intrusion live, even broadcasted the scene where he was arrested. In the end, the president also expressed concern about the riot situation. It is not what the president wants, he expressed his position to remain cool.

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. This is where we may have approval and disapproval of the court's judgment, criticism and approval, but at least neither side will be able to acknowledge and agree on such a violent situation. That's why, of course, the president seems to be expressing concern about this situation and saying that he should find coolness. I think it's clear that this has no choice but to look at it like that from any point of view.

[Anchor]
In a case like the act of turning an arrow at a judge because they disagree politically, so isn't the judge an independent judicial body? Attempts to take the judge's ruling and make it seem as if they were wrong, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
This could be a very serious threat. Is it also part of the investigation of the warrant this time? Wouldn't the judge feel a lot of pressure to judge this? I was worried that I would struggle with external situations, but this is a very burdensome situation for judges and judges because there was a situation like a riot and threatening as if they were going to cause harm by calling the name of the judge in charge.

Of course, despite these environmental effects, judges will make their own judgments according to law and conscience, but the psychological burdens that may arise in the process cannot be ignored, and these appear to be problems that can cause significant disruption to the entire court system if eventually collected. That's why this kind of expression of opinion, this kind of physical behavior, etc., is considered to be such an act that harms the entire judiciary and can only be evaluated as a very serious problem.

[Anchor]
It is difficult to find an analogy in constitutional history in which the court, the last bastion of the rule of law, has become lawless due to a de facto riot. I'm continuing to show you the related screen. In the future, we will look into the investigation of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. The request for an arrest warrant submitted by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to the Western District Court is about 150 pages. He is a sure offender. That's why they were in a position that they needed to be restrained. There was an expression that President Yoon was a typical conviction. I think this expression has been accepted.

[Jeongbin Seo]
This expression itself comes from emphasizing that we believe in political beliefs and have moved forward on this allegation with confidence that it is legitimate, unjust, and justified. In the end, the reason for expressing this conviction is that if he is released later, he is a person with this conviction, so the same measures can be taken. It's also a phrase that emphasizes that you can commit recidivism. Therefore, the issuance of a warrant on this point may not mean that he will admit to President Yoon the concept of a certain criminal itself, but at least I think there are concerns about recidivism, as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit claims.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit used the expression "confident criminal" as an expression of the concern of recidivism, but the president refuted it by saying that it makes no sense to do martial law without confidence, and that "confident criminal" means that he is not guilty.

[Jeongbin Seo]
I don't think it's possible to argue about this part with a legal basis. President Yoon's side seems to be arguing that the crime does not constitute if interpreted in this way, but I don't think this was the core content. As I said, the biggest reason for the issuance of the warrant is that evidence has been collected to a considerable extent for serious charges, and that the warrant was issued because the part was confirmed to some extent. I think this part is peripheral, and the difference in positions on the expression of certain criminals is peripheral.

[Anchor]
If you look at past cases, former presidents who were arrested. Former President Park Geun Hye was investigated for the first time in five days after his arrest. It was the first investigation in three days after former President Lee Myung Bak's arrest. When will the first investigation take place after President Yoon's arrest?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I'm thinking that the investigation will eventually not attend or refuse to make a statement even if it does. Since the existing position was so strong, I did not make a statement on most of the questions even after attending, and after that, I stayed in the detention center and did not attend at all. It seems that even if this position is restricted, it will not change. Of course, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or the prosecution may try to summon it, but it seems that they will not respond to it. If so, I think there will be no direct investigation of the president for the time being.

[Anchor]
Finally, the revised Civil War Special Counsel Act was passed. In the end, we don't know if acting Choi Sang-mok will propose the right to request reconsideration.Ma said that even if the independent counsel is launched, if it is handed over from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to the prosecution and the prosecution prosecutes it, there will be no special prosecutor's job.

[Jeongbin Seo]
The effective operation of the special prosecutor should be to open the investigation directly or to take over the investigation and conduct additional investigations, but from now on, it seems difficult for the special prosecutor to begin until the investigation into President Yoon is completed and prosecuted. Of course, there may be some differences, but in the end, there seem to be many predictions that the special prosecution will not begin until after the indictment. If that happens, of course, the special prosecutor can request the ongoing case to proceed with the case, and maintaining an indictment is one of the important tasks, so of course, we can proceed with this part.Wouldn't there be a big difference between the operation of the special prosecutor from the investigation stage and the operation of the special prosecutor at the trial stage, because there will inevitably be a big difference in the way and content of the investigation? And if it starts only after the prosecution, I think the effect will be significantly reduced.

[Anchor]
I see. I took a closer look with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin, the first current presidential arrest situation in constitutional history. Thank you.