尹 Is the cause of the issuance of an arrest warrant and refusal to attend? "You're at a disadvantage, but..." [Y Record]

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

◆Seol Ju-wan> In the part that the president will attend in person, I think he has fully exercised his right to defend himself 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, then Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, 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 Ju-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's true that I ask for an investigation, but it doesn't 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, 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? 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.

Excerpted from
: Lee Eun-bi, editor of the digital news team

#YRecord