President Yoon's arrest for the second day...the aftermath of the destruction of justice

■ Host: Anchor Park Seok-won, Anchor Um Ji-min
■ Starring: Attorney Seol Ju-wan, Attorney Yoongi-chan

* 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]
With the arrest of an incumbent president for the first time in constitutional history, there is a backlash over the issuance of an arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
Let's point out the related content with the two of you.

It's with lawyer Yoon Ki-chan and lawyer Seol Ju-wan. Welcome.

[Anchor]
First of all, President Yoon himself argued for about 40 minutes, but an arrest warrant was issued. How did you like it?

[Seol Joo-wan]
In terms of the president's direct attendance, I think he has fully exercised his defense rights as a president and a suspect. However, the judge reportedly asked one question inside when asked. That is the purpose of the national constitution in the crime of rebellion, that is, why did you want to create a non-legislative body to replace the National Assembly, and delivered a note to Choi Sang-mok regarding the budget. But now the president couldn't answer this accurately at the time.

Then, let's leave out the title of president of Yoon Suk Yeol and see it as a suspect, there must be a dispute that the judge cannot answer an exact question when the judge asks about a charge in the warrant examination, or the judge does not issue a warrant. Given that what the suspect is saying is logically convincing to some extent, the warrant would not have been issued. However, in my opinion, when the judge in charge of the warrant as a suspect asked about these charges, rather than the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, the answer itself was a little vague. That's why I thought I wasn't defending enough against the charges, so I think it was natural to issue a warrant.

[Anchor]
The note handed over to Choi Sang-mok, the deputy prime minister for economy at the time, contained information related to the emergency legislative body, and whether it was written by itself or what it was specifically. Didn't you ask this question? Where do you think the judge asked this question?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I'm not sure why the judge did it. For example, asking for an emergency legislative body is an indirect question to the effect of abolishing the current National Assembly. Emergency legislative body means creating an organization that conducts legislative activities instead of the National Assembly. The request party will be revealed during the trial, but since the president's position and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit's position are divided anyway, if there was no intention of making the function of the National Assembly in name for a long time, there is no purpose of national constitution. It's seen as a question linked to that purpose. It was dealt with in the process of clarifying the crime, and I'm 15 characters who issued a warrant this time. When issuing the warrant, the presiding judge concluded that there was a fear of destroying evidence, but he did not explain why.

In the case of CEO Lee Jae-myung, he explained the reason in detail within 890 characters, but since he did it without it, it was difficult for the person concerned to accept it, and it was difficult for his supporters to accept it. I think it would have been better if I did it longer. Because he's the president. Let's treat the president highly, it's not for this purpose, but it's a very important institution under representative democracy. Apart from the concept of Yoon Seok-yeol, we have to be very careful about compulsory investigation and arrest of people in the position of president. For example, the same representative organization, the National Assembly, has 300 members, but if individuals are arrested, they go through the National Assembly's consent process. In this way, there is a constitutional procedure that protects against some other external pressure or other accidental personal safety concerns. However, while conducting a forced investigation into the president, the decision is made based on 15 characters.

Also, if it goes into detail, the judge did not specify whether there was a risk of destroying evidence, so we guess based on what the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit claimed. I changed my phone. I left Telegram. I changed my phone after the public press conference on November 7th. Then it's a long time before December 3rd. It's between December 7th and 24th. Then, if you do an investigation on pollack bacteria at that time and say that you changed it at this time, there is a risk of destroying evidence, I agree. But the crime is not related to pollack. This is a rebellion-related charge, so if you present it in a situation where there is a fear of destroying evidence with a completely distant phone replacement and Telegram withdrawal, this is not right. Second, if you look at the progress of the investigation, most of them have been prosecuted because the prosecution and the police have already conducted considerable investigations, rather than just the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. In this situation, it is necessary to specify the reason more closely to judge that there is a risk of destroying evidence. But there is no fear of just destroying evidence without such a thing. It is hard to understand to issue a warrant in this way.

[Anchor]
However, aspects that did not comply with attendance also contributed to the cause. There were also observations like this.

[Seol Joo-wan]
The president continued to exercise the right to remain silent and refuse to make statements during the investigation. If so, he doesn't just exercise his refusal to make a statement, but rather thinks he won't be able to receive the investigation at all, regardless of his willingness to deny any charges. Then these parts...

[Yoon Ki-chan]
But, of course, from the perspective of judges and investigative agencies, it is true that it is disadvantageous that I ask for an investigation, but it does not come out when I ask for a summons. But this is an unprecedented situation because you are an incumbent president. However, the incumbent presidential security agency says there is a legal basis for us not to go out. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit also issued an arrest warrant, so you're claiming that there's a reason for me to go and pick you up. So, it's not just a refusal, but a refusal by claiming that they have their own legal basis, so it's hard to say that there's a risk of destroying evidence with just that, and the judge didn't suggest that there's a risk of running away. Then, refusal to subpoena is the same explanation as before, and refusal to state is a constitutional right. What the Constitution says is that you cannot take a disadvantageous action by refusing to make a statement.Yes. Of course, that part would have affected the development of psychosis, but I think it's too much to explicitly judge that there is a risk of destroying evidence based on it. Therefore, if you could provide a more detailed explanation, the controversy would have been reduced. That's what I think.

[Seol Joo-wan]
The exercise of the right to silence itself, in a way, from the point of view of the investigative agency, what does it mean that this person does not admit a crime, but does not admit a crime himself? It means that you can make things in your favor, such as evidence or witnesses, so that you don't have a crime. In that respect, I saw that the things that continued to exercise the right to remain silent are sufficiently likely to destroy evidence from the standpoint of the judge of the warrant. I think we need to take a closer look at things like cell phones. Whether he changed his phone again after the martial law or because he said he would change it in a public statement in November, as the president said, or whether he changed it after that, but there were no telegrams containing such instructions. I think there is a concern about the destruction of evidence in that area.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
However, if you look at the media, they each called the martial law commander on a non-phonic phone. There's no saying it was done with a cell phone. Then, in the case of non-phone, only the contents of the call come out, but no contents of the call itself come out. It is far from the destruction of the mobile phone and the martial law carried out through the non-phone, but there is a question of whether this can be accepted as the reason for the destruction of evidence.

[Anchor]
The presidential office tried to seize and search to secure a secret phone, but they kept blocking it. Then, could that have been seen as the reason for the issuance of an arrest warrant?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
It's not like that. I'm telling you again before, but there's no phone call left on the non-Phone. It only says when you talked to someone and it's all stated in the statement. Since each soldier has already made statements, if you look at former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's indictment instead of the president's indictment, the word "defendant" against former Minister Kim Yong-hyun appears 120 times. But President Yoon's name comes out 140 times, more than 140 times. As such, the investigation into the president is almost complete in all investigations, so I don't understand the possibility of destroying evidence.

[Anchor]
If there seems to be a side that does not comply with President Yoon's investigation into the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit today, will he also be charged with an arrest suit?

[Seol Joo-wan]
From the president's point of view, it seems that he will do it. I think it's going to be in the Seoul Central District Court.The result will not be different for me. As with the arrest suit, I think that even if a claim is made to the Central District Court, the Central District Court will dismiss it again.

[Anchor]
You are watching Kim Shin, the head of the family, appear at the prosecution at the scene. Let's listen to the story on the spot.

[Kim Shin / Head of the family department]
I don't admit it.

The first implementation of the instructions is my unconditional work manual and obligation because the head of the agency ordered disapproval and instructions were given to him.

[Reporter]
Are you planning to respond to the summons?

[Kim Shin / Head of the family department]
At that time, I submitted a letter of reason because I had a duty to perform security duties.

[Reporter] There are suspicions that it was the president's order to stop
, is that true?

[Kim Shin / Head of the family department]
I don't think so, and the president, the security chief, the deputy chief you know, and the security chief should not suffer human damage. It was a consistent instruction focusing on those things.

[Reporter]
Can you say something to the people for the last time?

[Kim Shin / Head of the family department]
I will faithfully engage in the investigation of the investigative agency.

[Anchor]
Kim Shin, the head of the family, who is also classified as a hardliner within the security office, came to the police.

Please understand that the screen was uneven among the viewers.

Kim Shin, the head of the family, was present today, how will the investigation into the bodyguard proceed?

[Seol Joo-wan]
He's the deputy security chief. I think the investigation will proceed without detention as the arrest warrant itself is rejected by the prosecution and the 48-hour arrest warrant has expired.
Now, the police seem to want to judicialize the obstruction of the execution of special public affairs at the time and the obstruction of the first execution through arrest, but in this regard, the prosecution seems to have seen no need for arrest yet. In the future investigation process, more and more illegality, especially I think it will be very important whether the president instructs or not.

Whether the president instructed him to actively block it in the first execution, and then the president appeared in the first and second execution. It seems that he may have given some direct instructions, such as going around in his official residence with his bodyguards at the time and defending himself. If so, I think the arrest will be divided later if there is an investigation into whether the president, the deputy head of the security department, Lee, and Kim Shin, the head of the family department, were asked to actively prevent the execution of public affairs during the first and second executions.

[Anchor]
Since President Yoon Suk Yeol did not respond to the notice of attendance at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit today, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is said to be considering forced recruitment or door-to-door investigations, but if he refuses to make a statement again, how will the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit continue its investigation in the future?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I'll hand it over to the prosecution early. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the authority to prosecute, so when the investigation is completed, it is almost self-evaluating that it is completed now. So, even if the president continues a door-to-door investigation or a forced investigation, if he does not comply, he will not make a statement. Then there is no need to investigate, and there is one part that will be handed over to the prosecution early. Regarding the security service, former Chief Park Jong-joon is being summoned for obstructing the execution of special public affairs because of the first round. Former Director Park Jong-joon and Security Director Lee Jin-ha are being held without detention.

Since these people are former police officers, they seem to have cooperated with the police investigation early on due to various reasons. But since they are without detention, the rest of them are the same crime, in a way. That's why I actually applied for an arrest warrant for these people to execute the president's arrest warrant, and I don't think they're going to apply for an arrest warrant because their crimes are so urgent that they're going to apply for it right away. That's why the prosecution rejected the warrant for Deputy Chief Kim Sung-hoon. an arrest warrant So, from the police's point of view, there is a high possibility that it will lead to a trial without detention.

[Anchor]
The breaking news from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said that President Yoon Suk Yeol has decided not to appear in the summons investigation, as well as considering forced recruitment and door-to-door investigations. And there will be a briefing at 10:30 at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. We talked about explaining the investigation plan, but we will tell you again when we receive new news from the site.

President Yoon is now exercising his right to remain silent on the investigation, but he is sending a message from prison. Is this appropriate, there seems to be a controversy over this, what do you think?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I think yesterday, especially at the weekend, the presidential attack on the Western District Court, after which it seems quite inappropriate for the president to issue any message. I think the cause of the supporters' raid on the Western District Court is definitely there for President Yoon. Let's keep fighting together before that. He continued to preach to his supporters that he would not bend his will, assuming a confrontation phase. I don't think there's a need for the president to express his opinion peacefully in this regard because I think the continued messages in prison or messages in the official residence have had a significant impact.

If you want to express your opinion peacefully, what is peaceful? That's also a problem. So, I think it's rather right for the president to be investigated faithfully within the judicial process and to sincerely talk about any defense he made, like the warrant review last time, even when he went to the investigative agency. Now, I think it's a message that President Yoon antagonizes and turns national law enforcement agencies to his supporters, so I don't think any of the president's messages are correct.

[Anchor]
Lawyer Yoon Ki-chan, please express your opinion in a peaceful way that President Yoon Suk Yeol issued in prison, how did you read this message?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
A peaceful way, you know, there was an invasion of the West. It's a shocking situation. They are related anyway to the effect that such a situation should not happen. It's hard to say that it's inappropriate because it's a message that says, "Even if you express your intention in a peaceful way," because it happened while they were protesting about the issuance of their warrants. Because don't send any messages to the president, this is too much. All the politicians have been sending messages so far. In the case of representative Lee Jae-myung, he also submitted the warrant whenever he went to the prosecution to investigate the warrant. Even before that, I sent this message when I went to get a warrant. I will stand in front of the national uprising with the determination of my life. I sent out this kind of message. If this message comes out now, there will be another huge political attack. But what's the cause of the riot like this about the message, don't send a message. I've never said this before. So, the message of politicians belongs to their freedom of expression, so aside from the legal evaluation of the message, don't send a message, and it's responsible. I think it's rather a blockade to do this, and I don't think it makes sense to be harsh only to President Yoon because we've been doing it all along.

[Anchor]
As you said, it was an unprecedented court intrusion, so President Yoon also sent a message from prison in this regard. We organized the disturbance at the time of the Western District Court by video. I'll explain a bit while watching the video and share my opinions again.

First of all, it was early morning yesterday. At 2:50, a presidential arrest warrant was issued. About 20 minutes after it was issued, as you can see now, supporters are going on a rampage toward the back gate of the Western District Court. I tried to enter, but I did. You're seeing them go inside and break down the furniture.

[Anchor]
You've seen us storming at 3:21 p.m. And at around 4:30 there was a collision. There was a conflict due to violent acts, but we also delivered the scene of assaulting the police like this. You could also see the windows damaged. So eventually, at around 6 o'clock, supporters of Yoon Suk Yeol's president were quarantined outside the courthouse, and after that, rallies continued nearby. This violence is not irrelevant to the political circles. Some point out that the messages from politicians regarding the responsibility for the violence have encouraged this. What did you think about that?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
It could be a cross-section of the judicialization of politics. Politicians cannot solve political tasks on their own, and they almost hand them over to the judiciary through accusations and accusations. As a result, just as the judiciary's judicial action itself has become politicized, there are parts that can be misunderstood by the people. The judiciary originally establishes various organizations in a democracy, and the people become owners and build them, and the most important of them is the judiciary. It's a means of forcibly resolving disputes, so if you don't accept it here, in fact, society can't go back. From that point of view, I think I'm at fault in the political world. But rather than expressing this as a direct causal relationship, the fact that the political community has not been able to resolve it on its own and has passed everything on to the judiciary, and the people see the judiciary and politics as a lump. As a result, each political camp interprets the judiciary's judgment differently. It's not a current problem, it's been a long time. But in my memory, I think it's gotten worse since 2010, so I used the expression of respect in the past, about the judiciary's judgment. That's not the case now. Since it is a field where we are even evaluating individual judges, I think it is not going to end with a question about pending issues this time, but how about preparing measures to prevent recurrence through a parliamentary investigation. What's going on with the pending question? What's the status quo? It's not going to end up asking like this, but it's about making laws or institutional supplementation in the future, and Supreme Court justices gathering and having meetings. So we should take this part as serious.

[Anchor]
What are some institutional precautions to prevent violence or intrusion from these supporters?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
For example, strict punishment is given priority. You have to be severely punished to get the effect. But not only this incident, but there have been quite a few collective situations in the past. That's what happened to the umbrella union. At first, the umbrella union started as a legitimate act, but later, it often went beyond the guidelines established by the police to illegally express its collective intentions. So, depending on each supporter, there were some parts such as tolerating the illegal act or trying to turn a blind eye to it. I thought that if these things are accumulated, these results can be achieved, so I personally think that political self-indulgence comes first, followed by strict punishment, and then, in relation to the court, the identity of the judge is covered. There are some areas where this kind of measure is necessary, so I think a comprehensive review plan is needed.

[Anchor]
Aren't you saying that you're also asking the Judiciary Committee an urgent question this morning regarding this situation? If current questions are asked at the site, we will connect to the site and let you know what questions come and go from the judiciary committee.

As you can see, supporters broke windows, took away police shields, hit the police, and assaulted them. As you said, there have been several collective actions in the past, but in the case of a rampage to the court like this, isn't there an excessive or overheated part? Why is this happening?

[Seol Joo-wan]
This is the first time. For example, you went in to find a judge who issued a warrant against the court, through an act of violence. But if I found it, I don't think what would have happened would have happened, but I think there's a point where you're talking about the politics as a whole.Ma believes that Yoon Suk Yeol's president and the ruling party are more responsible for this. In a way, in the past, when the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions committed violent acts at the Democratic Party's impeachment rally, of course, criticism poured out against them. Naturally, the Democratic Party of Korea was also criticized for such a violent rally with the KCTU.

But who are they about this? Are they just citizens? Of course, you are a citizen and a citizen of the Republic of Korea. But what is their purpose? Let's protect the president. He stormed the court out of dissatisfaction with the president's issuance of a warrant. We saw it now, but it took about three hours at the courthouse. If so, what's more problematic for me is Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun's remarks in the middle of the process, sufficient remarks to cause misunderstanding, and now that the police are also the problem to the ruling party leadership.

The police are not the problem here. Of course, I think if there is a problem, there is a problem that we have not been able to suppress it more strongly. when it comes to that. But the ruling party's leadership cannot afford to miss the support shown in recent polls of hard-line supporters, so they are rather wary of it and say that? That's not what conservatives should have. Conservatives are supposed to protect the stability and law of the system and protect the law, but it's not the way of conservatives to storm the court and break dissatisfaction with a system in such a violent way.
So as a conservative party, I think it would be better for the power of the people to be more responsible.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
We never said it was okay with that. And lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun said it himself. I also think it is inappropriate, but he says that it was a process of investigating several people before such an incident. After investigating, as you know, I think I usually used the expression "Hunbang" to release it unless it is restrained. So, I didn't think it was in the expression of tolerating that and not much, so I think it's a leap forward interpretation to defend or defend the power of the people.

[Anchor]
There is now a question about the Western District Court rampage at the National Assembly Judiciary Committee. I'll try to connect to the site.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
I think that's what the National Assembly should do now. Controversy over illegal investigation by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit without investigative power, and jurisdiction over arrest and arrest warrants during arrest and arrest investigation. It is also controversial that certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act have already been excluded. Also, the Constitutional Court will not judge the crime of rebellion. In this process, the limitations of the judiciary and investigative agencies were revealed. I received a lot of comments like this. With the unprecedented arrest of an incumbent president, there is a great public question as to whether this is legally possible. Acting Minister, please listen. Article 84 of the Constitution states that the President shall not be criminally prosecuted while in office except for crimes of civil war and foreign exchange. It looks like this, right? That's why many people think that the president must have been arrested because of vague accusations of civil war. But the president's arrest began when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit investigated him for abuse of authority, right? However, since the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can only investigate abuse of authority and cannot investigate allegations of rebellion, you investigated the rebellion with related cases while investigating abuse of authority, right?

[Kim Seok-woo / Acting Justice Minister]
Yes.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
So, in conclusion, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit investigated the incumbent president for abuse of authority. This is the fact, right?

[Kim Seok-woo / Acting Justice Minister]
Yes.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
That's where the issue comes from. Until now, Article 84 of the Constitution has mainly interpreted the meaning that the president is not prosecuted while in office, which means that the investigation is impossible because prosecution is impossible and prosecution is impossible. Is it right?

[Kim Seokwoo / Acting Minister of Justice]
I understand that there are various opinions on whether an investigation is possible for crimes that cannot be prosecuted.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power Congressman]
That's right. So, it was controversial whether or not it was possible to investigate cases that could not be prosecuted, but it was customary not to investigate because it was a case that could not be prosecuted, and there were many jurists who saw it difficult to investigate, right?

[Kim Seokwoo / Acting Minister of Justice]
I understand that there are such views, some possible views, and various views.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
Then, this time, it is possible to investigate crimes that cannot be prosecuted while the president is in office, right?

[Kim Seokwoo / Acting Minister of Justice]
There is an aspect that sets such a precedent.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
So far, has there ever been a single case of a president being subpoenaed, arrested, or arrested while in office?

[Kim Seokwoo / Acting Minister of Justice]
As far as I know, there is no such case.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
So, this time, the investigation is possible even in a case where the president is not prosecuted for any purpose, and this precedent remains clear.

[Kim Seokwoo / Acting Minister of Justice]
First of all, there's a part of that.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
Therefore, it is possible for the incumbent president to investigate all criminal charges in the future. We've come to this conclusion now. Then, in the future, such contradictory situations can continue to be produced in the future, where those who are presidents are investigated and not tried. Do you agree on this?

[Kim Seokwoo / Acting Minister of Justice]
Yes, as mentioned earlier, I understand that there are various conflicts of opinion over whether it is possible to investigate crimes that cannot be prosecuted and, if possible, to what extent.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
I'll ask the head of the legislation department. Then, as I just said, even if those who are presidents are not tried in the future, they can be investigated, and this precedent has been left, do you agree with this argument?

[Lee Wan-gyu / Head of Legislation]
As for the fact that such a controversy has become realistic this time, the case probably does not end here on the main issue, right? The investigation by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not mean that it was judged legitimate, so if the president is prosecuted, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will start an investigation into abuse of authority that cannot be prosecuted on the main issue and will probably be judged on the main issue.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
Then, what the chief said is that if the president is prosecuted in this case and the punishment is confirmed, then this precedent remains clear when the crime is confirmed. I can see it like this, right?

[Lee Wan-gyu / Head of Legislation]
That's right. If the Supreme Court recognizes that, it will set a precedent.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
So I don't think that will happen, but even if Lee Jae-myung becomes president right away, he will continue to be investigated on all criminal charges. And no matter who becomes the president, there are charges of abuse of authority during the performance of his duties? Then investigate and get subpoenaed. This situation is fully anticipated. This is how the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit caused such controversy without actively correcting the interpretation of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. So I think that it is necessary to organize responsible positions for each institution at this time. Do you agree with the deputy chief of the court administration?

[Bae Hyungwon / Deputy Chief of Court Administration]
Currently, the court has decided on arrest warrants and arrest warrants. If the prosecution process takes place later, I think the court will make a reasonable judgment on various issues.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
An arrest warrant has been issued for the president, and the reason for this is only 15 characters. There is a risk that the suspect will destroy the evidence. In this regard, don't you think the court needs a more detailed explanation of the unprecedented situation in which the public's interest is high and the incumbent president is arrested? We also have this obligation. Investigation is basically an investigation without detention, right, deputy chief?

[Bae Hyungwon / Deputy Chief of Court Administration]
That's right.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
Arrest is made when there is a fear of escape or destruction of evidence. Right?

[Bae Hyung-won / Deputy Director of Court Administration]
Yes, that’s right.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
Since there is a presumption of innocence, the crime is serious, and the seriousness alone does not give you a sentence, right?

[Bae Hyungwon / Deputy Chief of Court Administration]
I think it must have been judged in consideration of the comprehensive circumstances.

[PARK JUN TAE / People's Power]
That's right. Representative Lee Jae-myung and former representative Cho Kuk were also not arrested according to the principle of investigation without detention. So, there are many people who have these common-sense questions about whether there is equity in the application of this law, and complaints are accumulated with the court and the investigative agency. Please consider it.

[Bae Hyungwon / Deputy Chief of Court Administration]
I see.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee]
Thank you. I forgot. Head of the correctional headquarters, please come to the floor for a moment. The public was in great shock about the Western District Court riot, and in the case of Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon, he should enter the Seoul Detention Center and bring the president out. In good words, this means rescuing or storming the Seoul Detention Center again, causing riots and unrest like this to bring the president out. So yesterday, when I read the media reports, the media only speculates. About the imprisonment of the suspect in the Yoon Suk Yeol rebellion. If you have anything to report, do it here, including safety.

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services Department]
The Seoul Detention Center is now cooperating with the police to ensure that there is no problem with security by cooperating with the police and also with the security service. So, as reported in the media, let's get the president out of the Seoul Detention Center, even if there is talk of this, I don't think that will happen.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
That's what you said about that part. Aren't you under arrest because you ran out of warrants and waiting for warrants? Then, wouldn't it have been moved to the waiting room for job openings and regular social media? Please report on that.

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services]
Until yesterday, we completed discussions with the security service on issues related to security and completed the movement from the waiting room for the suspect to the general detention center. Then, I received a report that I spent a good night in a general reception area.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
Then I went to the Seoul Detention Center twice. Before, isn't the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd building separate rooms for each social group? 1. It's 04 pyeong, right?

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services]
That's mostly the case.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
Then, where is the Yoon Suk Yeol inmate now?

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services]
I can't explain it in detail due to security issues, but I was reported to have designated one of the rooms with general detainees and accepted it.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
Generally speaking, it is in solitary confinement, but the general solitary confinement is 1.04 pyeong, but how much is the solitary confinement with a Yoon Suk Yeol suspect?

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services]
I received a report of 3.6 or 3.7 pyeong, which is similar to that of former presidents.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
Then, did you get a physical examination the same as a regular device?

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services]
That's right.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
Did you also take a mugshot?

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services]
That's right.

[Chairman]
There was no resistance or anything like that in the process.

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services]
I received a report that I cooperated well according to the procedure without anything special.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
Okay. Are there protesters in Seoul Detention Center right now like the Western District Court riots or not? Let's get the Yoon Suk Yeol out in front of the Seoul Detention Center. Do you have protesters like this or not?

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services]
Protesters have also received reports of protesters on both sides of the aisle.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
Please make sure to keep your guard thoroughly.

[Credit Hae / Head of the Department of Justice's Correctional Services]
I'll do my best.

[Jeong Cheongrae / Chairman of the Legislative Judicial Council]
Go inside, please. Rep. Seo Young-kyo, ask questions.

[Seo Young-kyo / Minjoo Party member]
Something that can't happen in South Korea has happened. How can a court in South Korea be attacked? Did this happen when the windows of the courts of the Republic of Korea were broken, the water was broken on the servers of the courts of the Republic of Korea, and all kinds of buildings were broken, Minister of Court Administration?

[Cheon vs. Yeop
]Director of Court Administration]
It's true.

[Seo Young-kyo / Minjoo Party member]
Can this happen? You can't or can't you? You have to say it firmly. Has there been an example in the history of the Republic of Korea where a court has been attacked like this, Deputy Chief of Court Administration?

[Bae Hyungwon
Deputy Chief of Court Administration]
There is no such thing.

[Seo Young-kyo / Minjoo Party member]
Minister of Justice, are you there?

[Kim Seokwoo
]Acting Minister of Justice]
does not exist.

[Seo Young-kyo / Minjoo Party member]
Is there a head of legislation?

[This complete
]Director of Legislation]
It's not supposed to happen.

[Seo Young-kyo / Minjoo Party member]
It's something that shouldn't have happened. Even in the world's OECD countries, courts have never been invaded like this. And the head of the court administration, he said he evacuated to the rooftop after preventing officials in the court from entering. He said he even hit a barrier. How scary it must have been. Let's take a look at the video. There's a lot more footage of how scary that video was. Please play it for us.

You go into where the judge is. They're taking the flash. There's a video like that and this picture is a bleeding cop. The police bled like this and dozens of people were injured by that mob. In Korea, Chun Doo-hwan did not enter the court. The Yoon Suk Yeol brought a gun to the National Assembly. I put a bullet in it. I came here loaded with live ammunition. And they asked us to pull the lawmakers down one by one in groups of four. But this isn't a civil war? But when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit investigates, is Mani, the head of the Legislative Office talking about that?

The prosecution investigated, the police investigated, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit investigated, and the court issued all warrants that were correct, and the Yoon Suk Yeol lost 11 games. The legal Yoon Suk Yeol did all sorts of things knowing the law and even had an arrest warrant, but the Yoon Suk Yeol was defeated in the arrest warrant. Aren't you coming out there and instigating it? And Jeon Kwang-hoon, a gang like Yoon Suk Yeol, goes in and asks to get the Yoon Suk Yeol. Does this make sense? What would you have done if at least one person in the court had been injured when the court was beaten like that? Would you like to demand strict legal punishment for this? And these are riots, riots. Is it right?

[Bae Hyungwon / Deputy Chief of Court Administration]
That's right.

[Seo Young-kyo/Rep. of the Democratic Party of Korea]
It's a riot and there's someone who instigated it. Yoon Sang-hyun, the one who instigated this. Young people were arrested after crossing the courthouse wall. You'll be given a disciplinary action soon. What would happen to everyone who heard this? Let's go to the court. Let's save them. Let's go and raid. Who's instigating this? Yoon Sang-hyun, the power of the people, is doing it and went to the U.S. Lee Yun Sang-hyun, you have to catch and punish him. CEO Kwon Sung-dong, are you saying the police are responsible? Is this what Kwon, the floor leader of the ruling party of the Republic of Korea, will say? And do you condescend to Lee Jae-myung because this is the time? It's not that it's wrong, but shouldn't I say it's wrong? It's not that this isn't right, but shouldn't we apologize to the public for being wrong?

Have you ever been attacked by a court in the Republic of Korea? It's on the seventh floor. I don't know if there are judges on the 7th floor or if there is a judge's office. It's not easy to know that there's a judge's office. And I broke the door. And I found Cha Eun-kyung and went in. What would have happened if Judge Cha Eun-kyung were there? I also went into the CCTV control room to erase the evidence. How's the situation in the control room?

[Bae Hyungwon / Deputy Chief of Court Administration]
First of all, CCTV is equipped in two rooms: a control room and a duty room. First of all, the first place where the protesters came in came through the party office. A video of damaging CCTV in the process of occupying the duty office has been reported through the media. And when we saw the scene right after this, the CCTV was damaged. We are currently in the process of restoring it.

[Seo Young-kyo / Minjoo Party member]
Deputy Minister of Justice, I'm smashing the door with a fire extinguisher. And do you think the people who walk into the control room and pour water and try to destroy the evidence are the ordinary people doing this because they're angry?

[Kim Seokwoo / Acting Minister of Justice]
It's not a normal situation.

[Seo Young-kyo / Minjoo Party member]
And it's not normal and you go into that seventh floor where there's a judge, it's not just a cell phone flash, it's a real flash. What do you think?

[Kim Seokwoo / Acting Minister of Justice]
Basically, even for that case, in the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, this issue is a serious crime that undermines the basis of the rule of law and the judicial system. So, I understand that he ordered a thorough investigation, and I think the investigative agency will clearly clarify the facts in consideration of the severity of this issue.

[Seo Young-kyo / Minjoo Party member]
To subvert the state agency of the country by coercion and make it impossible to exercise its power. This is a mob going in to make it impossible for the courts to exercise their powers. This corresponds to the National Constitution, so can we see it that far? I think if you look at this content enough, you can see it that way. And I'll ask our deputy justice minister. Kim Sung-hoon. Kim Sung-hoon is afraid of destroying evidence. I didn't take my phone with me. There's a risk of destroying all the evidence in the safe house where the head of the legislation went. And if you come back, you're too likely to suppress your bodyguards. And he's the one who blocked the execution of the warrant. To say that the prosecutor rejected the arrest warrant and arrest warrant to such a person, I think that an act that should not have occurred within the prosecution has occurred, and please thoroughly investigate it.

[Kim Seokwoo / Acting Minister of Justice]
I understand that the prosecutor in charge did not claim the warrant because there is no fear of escape and destruction of evidence and the risk of recidivism is not high, but I will check the facts again.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
I would like to say something as chairman of the committee. Today is the first time in constitutional history that the judiciary, the last bastion of our law, is holding an ongoing question to condemn the Seoul District Court's exploitation by the mob, to root out and prevent its recurrence.

Therefore, in order to condemn this riot, to root out it, and to prevent it from happening again, I believe that lawmakers will continue to ask questions, which should not interfere with the purpose of today's pending questions.

So, if possible, I think the ruling and opposition parties should speak out in one voice. I think that's a warning that this won't happen again. The police are even responsible for defending, harboring, or driving this riot in the Western District Court.
[Anchor]
You've come to the Judiciary Committee's current question. You must have watched it together. How did you enjoy it?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I think both parties have pointed out what should not happen. I don't think it's the power of the people to protect it. And through the head of the Legislative Office, the acting Minister of Justice, and the head of the Correctional Facility Division, they seemed to be exchanging words that they would prevent the current incarceration of President Yoon Suk Yeol and the possible assault on state facilities in the Western District Court in the future.

In this regard, I don't think it's a matter between the ruling and opposition parties, as Chairman Chung Chung-rae said earlier. Attacking the court can only be seen as an exercise of violence against the Korean system. So in that regard, I see that the National Assembly is going to call on the relevant agencies to impose strict penalties on this part. Of course, depending on the institution, it seems that appropriate dispositions will be taken.

[Anchor]
Representative Seo Young-kyo pointed out that he did not understand the ruling party's remarks that the police were responsible. I think I'm pointing out that comment. Floor leader Kwon Sung-dong made a statement to the effect that the police authorities could not unilaterally hold protesters responsible for violence, but the police countered that the damage was great because they failed to respond quickly.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
So, I shouldn't ask questions about pending issues that will end up being dominated or something like that. The people sitting over there are the ones who need to come up with measures and direct them, but you don't have to shout or say meaningless things while calling them like that. Then, how was the protest suppression actually carried out at the time, and I should suggest that we should do this in the future, but thoroughly investigate and punish it, you're talking in principle. So that's meaningless, and it's true that there are, for example, reports related to the police. But you have to look at this separately. Protests should be evaluated as protesters, and police response should be treated as insufficient or excessive as police response, so this was caused by the police, for example, or protesters are the problem. Rather than this, protesters definitely have a problem. So even if it happened because of the police, the protest cannot be justified. It's true that there shouldn't be such a protest. So, we are not going to evaluate it by linking it, but it is the same in the political world. In addition, depending on the cause analysis, some factors reduce their influence, some become larger, and these become factors that make the situation worse, so I believe that we should keep those points in mind and proceed with pending questions, and sometimes there is room for a parliamentary investigation. How to improve in the process of exercising state power in dealing with protests in the future.

For example, this. What the police are most dissatisfied with now is that they are too tolerant of obstruction of justice. That's what they say about the courts. The police complain that the judges of the court have been quite tolerant of obstruction of justice. So, it's the job of the National Assembly to decide whether to raise the sentencing standards in the future under these various systems. So, if you have to call the deputy chief of the court administration, you have to discuss details related to the National Assembly's work, order countermeasures, and punish them. Of course I have to. I think that this kind of meaning is still not alive.

[Anchor]
I think there was a question and answer from reporters at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. According to what the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit revealed, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has just heard that it is strongly considering the direction of President Yoon's forced recruitment. This is because President Yoon is urgently investigating, but he is also considering an on-site investigation into the detention center. It's because you didn't comply with the attendance this morning. And I said that the first arrest period is determined by the 28th and the second is until February 7th, but it can be increased by about four days, assuming a binding pride. I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is also considering a request for an arrest suit.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I think there is a lot of possibility to request a suitability during the investigation stage of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. Because it's going to be handed over around the 24th. According to the consultation with the prosecution of themselves. However, I heard that it was increased to February 4th due to the last arrest, but even if it goes to the prosecution and responds to a newspaper composed of more abundant data to the prosecution, it is less risky for the president. Because the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have that many investigation records, the prosecution may have investigation records that contradict the answers later if the president answers the newspaper report they prepared.

So, even strategically, the lawyer would probably say that. Regardless of the individual president, it is better to consistently respond in newspapers based on the prosecution's abundant investigative data, even strategically. If you respond to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and go to the prosecution, you will ask another question based on other data, but you may be speechless about this. So, I think that maybe strategically, they will decide whether to respond to the investigation after moving to the prosecution.

[Anchor]
Then, from the point of view of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, is it advantageous to turn this case over to the prosecution as soon as possible if President Yoon Suk Yeol continues to exercise his right to remain silent even after forced recruitment?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I think I talked about it last week, but there is a total arrest period of 20 days. It means we're going to share it for 10 days. I personally think I've done almost everything the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will do. If you've even received an arrest warrant, I think you've almost played your role as an airborne organization. Rather, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit proceeds with the summons and investigation of the president for three to four days to produce meaningful results, but if the president is clear that he will no longer respond to the investigation, I would rather transfer to the prosecution sooner than later. Because the prosecution includes existing military officials, military generals, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency chief, and the National Police Agency chief. All of them have research materials. I've already been arrested and charged. If so, you can ask against the data based on the investigated data and then based on the evidence. You can investigate the president. It can be much more abundant than the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and I think the prosecution may be judging that the current records from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit cannot be seen as meaningful to the prosecution. Because it's basically not a survey questionnaire based on faithful data. That's why I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has struggled so far. If you thought you really worked hard and even got an arrest warrant, I think you played a role as an airborne organization. Here, you should give the prosecution three to four days, or two weeks to investigate. If so, if the president goes to the place where he served as a prosecutor, he can rather respond to the investigation to make his junior prosecutors not ashamed. In that regard, I think it would be better to have a concubine as soon as possible. I think.

[Anchor]
If the prosecution directly investigates President Yoon Suk Yeol, will President Yoon Suk Yeol actively make a statement about this?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
But there are difficult problems. Because one of the things that did not respond to the investigation of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit was that they had no investigative power. But the prosecution is similar. The prosecution also has the right to investigate abuse of authority, but in fact, it does not have the right to investigate rebellion. However, some lawmaker mentioned various controversies over the abuse of authority earlier, but even according to the opinion that the investigation can be conducted in practice, so there is a content that the forced investigation cannot be conducted from the standpoint of the president who has the privilege of fluoridation. You can investigate, but you can't reach a compulsory investigation, so you can ask for a warrant. Because it is a constitutional provision to guarantee presidential status, there are many opinions that it is impossible to arrest and lock it up to neutralize it. So it is unclear whether the president will respond to the prosecution's investigation in such a situation, for consistency. There is one such thing, and the other is prosecuted after going through the investigation stage at the prosecution stage. If indicted, all investigation records can be copied by lawyers. It might be better to respond to the trial with all the investigation records copied and viewed. Because this is one of the strategies used by lawyers, I try to copy all the records that the prosecution has.

And the other is that unlike before, there are many cases these days where the prosecution's report does not have the ability to testify. I can't agree to this during the trial. Then you lose the ability to testify. The investigation records cannot be used as evidence. So in the end, there's no reason to investigate this after catching the president. If you're confident, you can quickly prosecute it. If you're not confident, you should have done it without detention. It means you have to prosecute within 20 days. That's how confident he is, so he issued a warrant, so what's the point of forcing a person who takes the president and exercises the right to refuse to make a statement? Which means that the first one is less investigated. The horse is not confident of prosecution. Then, isn't it right that you should have been arrested? Because if you are arrested, the investigation period is infinite, so you can do supplementary and other investigations at any time, but if you are prosecuted within 20 days, you must be prosecuted. After prosecution within 20 days, the suspension of prosecution cannot be enforced against the accused. So, I don't know if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit conducted a comprehensive review in these various aspects. Because they have the investigation data themselves. However, there are such difficulties.

[Anchor]
Isn't there another third hearing tomorrow for the impeachment trial of the Constitutional Court? Will President Yoon be present here?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I think it's right to attend. I don't know how you'll respond in the current situation. Do you attend the Constitutional Court's hearing without responding to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit's investigation? But I personally think it's better to go out faithfully. In that regard, I might go out tomorrow. I don't think it's a situation where movement is inconvenient right now. However, looking at the first and second hearing processes, I think it would be better for the president to attend and express his position. Because I don't think the lawyers know exactly what was going on at the time. As I try to talk about situations they don't know about even the judge's question, I think there are parts that are deployed.

In particular, wasn't it clearly revealed during this warrant review stage? The president says his memory is unclear whether he gave a note to Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok or not, but the lawyers say he has never given such a note. This clearly contradicts the facts. It's unclear whether it was given by me or by Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, and that there is no fact at all, because the suspect's statements are mixed. I think the president is asking the lawyers about this, the Constitutional Court is asking them about the situation at the time and why they wanted to do this, but I think the things that the lawyers are talking about now are quite poor. If so, I think it would be better for the president to attend the impeachment trial tomorrow, given that it is important for the president, who is the party, to attend and accurately express his thoughts.

[Anchor]
As lawyer Seol Ju-wan said, are the president and the lawyers communicating properly? And there were comments about the defense response of the lawyers.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
As far as I know, we have even entered the second opinion, but the Constitutional Court. I don't know exactly what's in the opinion. However, the first thing to do is that the lawyers and the representatives of the impeachment trial actually have to write the whole story. You have to write things that explain everything and submit an opinion to the court, for example. I don't just know the part that prohibits the activities of the National Assembly and local councils, I just moved on, I don't know how I understood it, I may not have seen it at the time as president. But the excuse that I didn't see it is not accepted as such by the judge. I think I caught a glimpse of this but how did I understand it. For example, political party offices are also in the National Assembly.

It is not a ban on the legislative activities of the National Assembly itself, but it is necessary to write all the parts from beginning to end and submit them to the court that we understand the freedom of party associations because we can prohibit the freedom of party activities. Then you have to enter oral argument, but if you do oral argument at that time, the judges cannot continue it. Everything will be recorded in writing. So I think it's probably in the opinion until the second round, but if the judges of the Constitutional Court give that impression that it's not enough, they should supplement it more and faithfully explain everything from start to finish.

[Anchor]
Lawyer, from the perspective of the legal profession, are the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, the suspect, and the lawyers communicating well?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
Communication seems to be going well. However, I think it is important for lawyers in charge of actual practice to interview the president. So lawyer Seok Dong-hyun and lawyer Yoon Gap-geun seem to meet often, but of course they will have a meeting. But do you always go in with a lawyer who writes practical work? I think it's basically urgent to see how much they organize the facts through the president's experience at that time. Of course, I think it's done, but if it's not done, you have to make it rich enough to overflow. I think all answers should be made within that, and then the president's attendance should be decided.

[Anchor]
Aren't you saying that you will attend the fourth hearing on Thursday as a witness to former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun? Earlier yesterday, I can't remember whether President Yoon wrote an emergency legislative body, former Minister Kim Yong-hyun, or I wrote it. There were stories like this, and there were various parts that were contrary to each other. What will be said in the witness questionnaire?

[Seol Joo-wan]
If you attend in person, I think that will be the most controversial part. The president's side says that Minister Kim Yong-hyun made a mistake while copying the old one. However, in the afternoon of that day, former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's lawyers said that this was written properly and that the president even supervised it at the time. If so, how would former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun testify in person, for example, in the presence of the president? Then the credibility of the testimony and whose argument is correct will be revealed. If that's the case, the judges' impression of this trial could be very different depending on the credibility of whose words, whether the president is continuing to lie, or whether witnesses are lying. The president keeps lying. Then, if you say you have a preconceived notion of lying, how much proof will the president have to make to overturn it? If that's the case, I don't know if the president will attend on Thursday or not.Ma's witness questioning of Minister Kim Yong-hyun is quite important throughout this trial. But I think the president is very confident about this. Because the witness questioning of former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun was originally in February. Rather, the lawyers requested that it be pulled as soon as possible. As far as I know, it will be held this Thursday, but I think we will have to watch the witness interrogation process on Thursday to see what kind of favorable answers the president's side can draw when former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun is put on the witness stand first.

[Anchor]
As the president claims, former Minister Kim Yong-hyun copied the decree incorrectly. No, it was drafted, but the final review was made by President Yoon Suk Yeol. To find out the conflicting arguments, we need to look at which parts to find out who is right.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
But these are compatible stories. You're not giving out any specific explanations. What it means to copy wrong. Then, there is no specific explanation of what it means to be a prosecutor to the president. It's compatible. But as I said earlier, you have to explain what you meant. The explanation must be followed, but the people who read it will understand that the judges did this or reject the understanding, but I'm not sure if they've gone that far yet.

[Anchor]
I see. I'll stop listening to it.

So far, we've been with two lawyers, Yoon Ki-chan and Seol Ju-wan. Thank you.