[News special news] Yoon said, "Impeachment trial will come out"...the first appearance of a sitting president

■ Host: Anchor Park Seok-won, Anchor Um Ji-min
■ Starring: Kim Hyung-joon, Chair Professor of Baejae University, Choi Jin, Director of the Presidential Leadership Research Institute

* 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]
President Yoon has decided to appear in person at the third hearing of the impeachment trial this afternoon. This is the first time the impeachment-appointed president will appear at the Constitutional Court. Let's take a look at today's Jungkook situation with the two. We are joined by Kim Hyung-joon, chair professor at Baejae University, and Choi Jin, president of the Presidential Leadership Research Institute. Welcome. First of all, it's the third hearing day this afternoon, and suddenly President Yoon said he would attend in person yesterday evening. Where is the background of this decision?

[Choi Jin]
First of all, isn't the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit pressuring the President of Yoon Suk Yeol by forcibly recruiting him? There is an aspect that you can neutralize the offensive process of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit by saying that you will leave the Constitutional Court in such a car, and secondly, the Constitutional Court has already not attended twice, right? Because it was the third anniversary, I decided that there was no reason to reject it anymore. In conclusion, President Yoon Suk Yeol seems to have decided that it is in his favor to be judged by the Constitutional Court rather than the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. In a way, the Constitutional Court's time has begun.

[Anchor]
The president of Yoon Suk Yeol said that everyone will be present as much as possible in the future. It seems to be actively responding, but will it be advantageous for President Yoon in legal terms?

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
I think there are a few reasons. The main reason is that the crime of rebellion is very important in the Constitutional Court, and the first fact is that military and police personnel have been arrested and charged in relation to emergency martial law. So, to prove that it is not a crime of rebellion, there is a part where you have to attend the Constitutional Court and protest it. Second, since the arrest warrant was issued in the end, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit had no authority to investigate the crime of rebellion, so of course, the president should go out to the Constitutional Court and talk about his position to prevent the issuance of an arrest warrant from eventually becoming a crime of rebellion. For this reason, in the end, I wonder if I made that choice.

[Anchor]
Let's point out the main issues one by one. First of all, it was yesterday afternoon. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit tried to force a recruitment from 3 o'clock, but replaced it until 9 o'clock, and it failed and just went back. How did you view these compulsory recruitment procedures?

[Choi Jin]
First of all, from the perspective of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, haven't you been criticized a lot about President Yoon Suk Yeol? In the process of refusal to arrest or various arrest warrants. But in conclusion, didn't you succeed in issuing an arrest warrant and an arrest warrant? So, from the perspective of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, in fact, he has played a role enough to quell the theory of incompetence and illegality.
But I think a lot of things like motivation and excessive will, in a way, that I want to go one step further and make the last big achievement by forcing a job.

However, as you know, it is difficult to find compulsory detention unless the detention center provides support because the place is a security guard and another prison in Seoul. Nevertheless, I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is trying to show how to maximize its last presence, and if the forced recruitment succeeds, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has played a completely major role in the impeachment and martial law situations. However, personally, the role of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit was sufficient. It played that role, so I think it would be nice to control the tempo at this point.

[Anchor]
Now, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is considering conducting an investigation even in the morning before President Yoon Suk Yeol leaves the impeachment hearing at 2 p.m., but President Yoon Suk Yeol has continued to exercise his right to remain silent on the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit's investigation. I think it's time to turn it over to the prosecution, what do you think?

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
In that sense, there is something I don't want to admit to the act of forcing the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to do. The first part is that if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit uses 10 days during the 20-day arrest warrant and passes 10 days to the prosecution for the final indictment, can't you judge that the president has no choice but to continue to remain silent in this situation? Can't the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit judge that much? By the way, do you think it's possible to continue the investigation after the forced recruitment? It's impossible.

Nevertheless, as you said earlier, going to show the reason for the existence of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit in this way can only be done to satisfy your extremely personal needs. So, if it's necessary, I don't know if you're going to visit the detention center and investigate there, but in my view, it's too much to say that you're going to force a detention. Second, even though we've seen it in terms of efficiency, it's not that appropriate, and furthermore, there are things we're forgetting in a lot of things right now. The ruling and opposition parties have said countless times that we should abide by both principles. The first is the principle of presumption of innocence, and the second is to give the right to defend.

In the case of representative Cho Kuk, he was sentenced to two years in the second trial under the grand principle of giving him the right to defend, but he was not arrested in court. Then, if the president wants to go to the Constitutional Court today, he should guarantee the right to defend himself if he says he will create a political party and represent the party for eight months. But to go and force it in the morning is just a political show. There is no real benefit. In that sense, it has been criticized a lot for what the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has done in relation to the Chae Sang-byung case and whether it has such investigative ability. But if you're just trying to highlight your presence through this kind of situation, I think that's not the right direction.

[Anchor]
But isn't there a procedure in the investigation of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit? It will be handed over to the prosecution only after a certain investigation is completed, but since such an investigation is not possible, there is a side of excessive speed control.

[Choi Jin]
There's that aspect, too. Shouldn't we finish something for the remaining 10 days of the arrest period, from the perspective of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit? In that sense, we can do a face-to-face investigation, but it's very best if we can do a forced recruitment investigation. I'm actually running toward my best, but from the point of view of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, I've been incompetent and illegal. He was arrested and detained after being arrested here and there like a local book. Up to this point, it has been achieved enough, but honestly, in the process, I think there was a little emotional involvement because the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is done by humans. In a way, I think the heavily expressed retaliatory aspect may have worked quietly. So, in a way, it is a bit of a forced recruitment, but anyway, from the perspective of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, several attempts were made to force recruitment, but in the end, they could not.

Don't you think the president has made a clear excuse because he's been stubborn? So, if the next best thing is to try face-to-face investigations or even fail to do so, we could do nothing in the Seoul Detention Center in the end because we eventually rejected all legal proceedings by President Yoon Suk Yeol. In the end, I think this is the kind of step towards reaching the conclusion that the President of Yoon Suk Yeol is responsible for everything.

[Anchor]
So you're saying that it's an effort to show that we've done our best until we do it, so how much will President Yoon Suk Yeol make a statement about it if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit completes the investigation to some extent and turns it over to the prosecution?

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
It could be a possibility. The parts that the prosecution does. But the problem is that the biggest basic conflicting parts are these. You're asking who has the authority to investigate the crime of rebellion. I think we're slipping by on that. If someone who doesn't have any authority suddenly catches anchors and interrogates them, I wouldn't ask, "What authority are you interrogating me?" It's a universal thing. Then, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which does not have the authority to investigate related to the crime of rebellion. Does the prosecution have the power to investigate crimes of rebellion? There's no such thing. This is why the police refuse to investigate the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit now because they have the authority to investigate.

So if the police investigate and ask the prosecution to do it, it doesn't make sense to avoid it if a legitimate authority has due process in accordance with due process. The reason why it doesn't work is that the more you do it, the more likely it will be against the Constitution, so I think President Yoon Suk Yeol will be fully aware of that. However, when the prosecution said it would investigate the case, which was conducted mainly by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, it is questionable whether the prosecution would respond so aggressively. Of course, the case of formal prosecution may be different, but these various legal conflicts are now being exposed a lot.

For example, an arrest warrant requested by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is issued immediately. If you've filed a complaint against the head of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, why isn't the prosecution doing anything? About that part? Despite the same accusation case. Are these things being kept as equity in the law? Whether the principle of the law or the presumption of innocence mentioned earlier and, furthermore, the principle of the right to defend are being observed now. The biggest thing is the legality of authority too easily overlooked. You're faced with the question of who will trust the results that can come if someone who doesn't have that authority does it. These things, what I'm talking about now, is that if the issue of law suitability, principle and equity are not observed, the resilience of the rule of law will sharpen. The U.S. government is emphasizing the resilience of the Republic of Korea right now, but I would like to say that it is a very dangerous situation because some of the situations I mentioned are not being observed in the current situation.

[Anchor]
I think we should talk about the impeachment trial, do you have anything to add?

[Choi Jin]
In a way, the professor just emphasized the importance of formal rule of law, but more importantly, practical rule of law is more important. When looking at President Yoon Suk Yeol, he only emphasized formal rule of law and continued to point out the problem of the procedure, but he has never properly exercised legal proceedings, defense rights, or self-defense rights. Not the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but I've never responded to the police, the Constitutional Court, the summons, or the delivery of data before.

In a way, President Yoon Suk Yeol and his lawyers are too problematic and self-contradictory to talk about defense or the rule of law because they have never properly stepped up, demanded arrest, and forced themselves to take legal action in the end or at the end.

[Anchor]
By the way, it is expected that President Yoon's voice will be officially heard at the third hearing this afternoon, so what will he say?

[Choi Jin]
First of all, haven't you said things that have been repeated? Representatively, the declaration of martial law in Article 77 of the Constitution is justified. We will focus on emphasizing the inevitability of declaring martial law that the current situation was inevitable for the sake of a quasi-war system or public order. So there was no intention of blocking the National Assembly, and only a minimal number of troops were mobilized. And I think the same repertoire that the NEC had to mobilize the military inevitably to investigate the fraudulent election will be repeated.

I think the Constitutional Court will probably put a lot of weight on President Yoon's message and come up with something different because I've already talked about it repeatedly through messages to the people. However, it can be an opportunity for public opinion and public opinion to re-evaluate martial law once again in terms of the content of the exchange of remarks in front of the public after appearing at the Constitutional Court.

[Anchor]
I heard that you had a meeting with the President of Yoon Suk Yeol until 9 p.m. last night with the lawyers, did you plan to reorganize what you've been talking about during that time?

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
This is the biggest key issue. Emergency martial law is about whether it is possible to commit rebellion. It's all set to that. So, if the crime of rebellion is not established, if it is unconstitutional or illegal in relation to emergency martial law, can the president be arrested if it is an abuse of authority? For example, you can arrest someone now because of the crime of rebellion, but if the crime of rebellion is not established, the president cannot be arrested even if it is unconstitutional or illegal due to the emergency martial law, by law. There is no choice but to be a very high possibility that it could become an issue.

But there can be some great disagreement about how we're going to define what we're talking about as a civil war crime and what we're going to define as an emergency that comes out of Article 77 of the Constitution. For example, what do we think if we're in an emergency situation right now? Isn't it a wartime situation? We have thought of such an uncontrollable situation as an emergency situation, but perhaps for President Yoon Suk Yeol, an emergency situation in modern times is not necessarily a wartime situation. In the meantime, it is very likely that the Democratic Party will focus on legislative runaway or tyranny.

For example, it is called tyranny of a number of people, but what consequences did these parts eventually lead to the abuse of impeachment and arbitrary budget-related parts? Impeaching a prosecutor is not just a prosecutor, but a prosecutor investigating representative Lee Jae-myung, it would be obstruction of justice. So what this eventually resulted in is an emergency because the Democratic Party's behavior eventually led to paralysis in the judiciary and the administration. I think there is a high possibility of protesting that it is not necessarily just a wartime situation. There's a very good chance that it's going to crash here.

Even so, of course, why did the National Assembly try to block the National Assembly by mobilizing the military? Then why did you try to infiltrate the Election Training Institute and take out important data? Because all of these were intended to forcibly paralyze the role of the constitutional institution, which is a crime of rebellion, there is no choice but to clash in such a way as to say that it is the crime of rebellion. The biggest point is that.

[Anchor]
But isn't former Minister Kim Yong-hyun going to appear as a witness on the fourth hearing day after tomorrow? Will there be another meeting with President Yoon here?

[Choi Jin]
I think there is a small chance that it will happen in the beginning. Before that, President Yoon has so many things to fight against individuals. If the statements of the two are quite different or contradictory, there is a high possibility of confrontation at the end of the day. In any case, President Yoon Suk Yeol believes that fighting over the crime of rebellion under the criminal law is avoided and disadvantageous. Because when the situation of the civil war has already been broadcast live to the whole nation, most of all, major participants, such as military commanders, security commanders, and counterintelligence commanders, have already been arrested as the main workers of the civil war, arguing about the crime of civil war is disadvantageous to you in many ways, because the statements have already been made. Rather than that, I would rather fight the Constitution at the Constitutional Court. Martial law is justified.

The logic that the national emergency was inevitable is that it is more likely to go to a strategy of appealing to strong supporters through messages to the public or political remarks rather than legally. That's why I keep preferring the Constitution to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the prosecution, or the police, and what I know to do at the Constitution is that there is a strategy to keep insisting on Article 77 of the Constitution in my favor.

[Anchor]
There were two different positions between President Yoon Suk Yeol and former Minister Kim Yong-hyun, but who wrote the note with the emergency legislative body? Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun took this because his lawyer said he wrote it, and former Minister Kim Yong-hyun wrote the draft of decree No. 1, claiming that the final revision was made by President Yoon Suk Yeol, and President Yoon Suk Yeol claims that former Minister Kim Yong-hyun copied it incorrectly. If two people meet on this part, how will the Constitutional Court sort it out?

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
Looking at those two things, the emergency martial law is so sloppy and goes beyond the common sense of our people. The emergency legislative body is probably if Kim Yong-hyun says they did it. I think I misunderstood that once the emergency martial law is declared, it can paralyze all functions such as the National Assembly. But now, in the Constitution of the Sixth Republic, you can do that in the past, but you can't paralyze the function of the National Assembly. Because the National Assembly has the right to lift martial law, don't we need an organization to replace it if the National Assembly, for example, is blocked without even thinking about that? That's why it came out as an emergency legislative body. So what this is after all about is just think about it when we were in the Fifth Republic. Before the 7th Republic, wasn't there a national treasure committee?

I think it's very likely that Minister Kim Yong-hyun thought of an emergency legislative body because he fell into the idea that the National Security Committee had replaced all the functions of the National Assembly, so that's what the judge of the Western District Court asked right away. To the point where they ask what you're talking about the emergency legislative body. Isn't it a terrible thing to say that you copied it? Did you copy the decree from the past in a very desperate situation of emergency martial law? How can the people accept this? As a result, it is too much for me to say that martial law is a threat or a warning, so I think it is the basis for our judgment that martial law was declared in such an unconstitutional and illegal part that should not exist.

[Anchor]
Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun said that the emergency legislative body had nothing to do with replacing the National Assembly, so this was not the purpose of dealing with the National Assembly with another organization. So you're making a claim to the effect that the purpose of the national constitution does not exist. How does the Constitutional Court accept this?

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
Don't they know the law? What's legislation? What's the law-making mechanism? It's the National Assembly. So, the emergency legislative body will replace the National Assembly. It would not be acceptable for elementary school students to protest in such a way with a problem they know. That's why the Constitutional Court continues to have disputes with each other over whether it was done with a different intention, not just an emergency issue, in relation to emergency martial law. However, President Yoon Suk Yeol's lawyers may protest that we immediately lifted martial law because they asked for it to be lifted and there were no casualties in a short period of time, but I would like to say that we have no choice but to conclude that this was done by looking at the two things I mentioned earlier.

[Anchor]
However, on the former Minister Kim's side, I mean, President Yoon Suk Yeol said he copied it as it is, but on the former Minister Kim's side, President Yoon Suk Yeol said that he has fully reviewed it. How should this contradicting argument be resolved?

[Choi Jin]
So, the difference of opinion between the two main players of martial law's political situation, the first and second, is already causing some kind of rift between the two. In fact, the two things you just mentioned are two important physical evidence that can prove the illegality and unconstitutionality of the crime of emergency martial law or civil war. If you look at decree 1, it seems that martial law is quite sloppy, but if you look at the note of the emergency legislative body, you can see that martial law was quite meticulous. However, martial law decree No. 1 is quite sloppy, but I copied it wrong, and President Yoon Suk Yeol claims it, but doesn't Minister Kim Yong-hyun say something completely different?

In fact, I put more weight on former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's remarks, although I have already reviewed them and seen them enough. Because when you trigger an emergency decree, how do you do it roughly? Moreover, doesn't Minister Kim Yong-hyun make a detailed statement that President Yoon Suk Yeol instructed him to exclude all night curfews? That is why this is an important point. In the future, it is a factor that can even conduct cross-examination, and secondly, in the case of emergency martial law legislation, if the National Assembly is neutralized, a new organization is created later and the budget is blocked. It can be seen as a decisive basis for a fairly meticulous and very elaborate preparation. By the way, President Yoon Suk Yeol asked who did this at the time, and he said he doesn't remember or doesn't know, right?

Wouldn't it be a pretty poor answer? So, if I think former Minister Kim Yong-hyun is trying to put all the responsibility on me during the Constitutional Court process later, it will not be a declaration of conscience, but if I make similar remarks, it will be unexpectedly difficult and President Yoon Suk Yeol may be in a tight spot. Now, I would like to say that the signs of a strange crack between the two are starting to appear quite concrete.

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
It's a prisoner's dilemma game. The prisoner's dilemma is that if you catch two criminals and confess after you confess, you'll be solved, or if you put everything on top of it, it's reasonable, so you confess to each other. But I think the decisive thing is this. The content of the interview conducted by Acting Authority Choi Sang-mok is crucial. Who gave you the note? The president gave it to you. But the note will be important next to you. If the president gave the note and asked me to review it, would the president just give the note to Acting President Choi without reviewing it at all? At least you must have seen the content.

Then, I gave it to Acting President Choi, so I thought that there would be a fierce legal debate in the Constitutional Court about who was the final actor. [Anchor] President Yoon Suk Yeol is now an arrest suspect, so I'm also interested in the way he attends the Constitutional Court in a detention center, but there was a riot in the Western District Court on the day the arrest warrant was issued. So I'm interested in how the case will proceed today, so how will it proceed?

[Choi Jin]
It's good to say that this is why riots are like this, but wouldn't there be a lot of noises that are most worrisome about the possibility of a second or third riot? However, depending on what message the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, who is currently in prison, can be called a rioter, and I think it is important to see how the violent supporters react. However, in fact, even in developed countries in the past, they occasionally occupied the parliament building, but they rarely attacked the courts and the judiciary. Coincidentally, in January 2020, Trumpian supporters occupied the U.S. Capitol, didn't they? However, five people died at the time, four citizens died and one police died, and the number of people arrested and suspects is quite similar to that of Korea.

About 120 people have been arrested, and about 80 have been reviewed for arrest warrants. It's quite similar. So at the time, a mob fully armed with weapons took over the U.S. Capitol, and we actually don't even have a gun and it's more serious than ever. So what's the difference between the martial law riots that the president did and the Western District Court riots that were committed by his supporters now. Isn't it that he was trying to change the situation by using his physical force? In this regard, I believe that the position of President Yoon Suk Yeol and his supporters and the persuasion of the public will inevitably decrease much in the future.

[Anchor]
But this is another thing that stands out. Arresters, some people from the Western District Court and the Western District Court moved to the Constitutional Court and tried to disturb them, but were they not arrested as active offenders? More than half of the 90 people arrested were men in their 20s and 30s. I think they're doing a meaningful analysis on this.

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
We'll have to wait and see about that later. But this is the part that I don't understand such a similar trend. From our polling point of view, after the emergency martial law was held on December 3 and the presidential prosecution passed the National Assembly on December 14, the overwhelming public sentiment was on the Democratic Party's side. Political party support and regime change rate. But if you look at it recently, it's changing a lot. According to yesterday's survey, support for the president, such as party support, extension of power, and support for the president are soaring unexpectedly, so I think these things must have affected the supporters of President Yoon Suk Yeol.

Therefore, of course, it reflects that even now, the approval rating of national power is increasing very rapidly in the 20s and 30s. Of course, it is not a question of whether it is Baekgoldan or not, but the biggest problem now is that the public power of the Korean police has completely collapsed. So, the public power of the police should be applied indiscriminately, but in the past, when farmers protested or, for example, the KCTU, etc., I think this is what the upper class said. I think there's a grand principle that you shouldn't over-suppress.

Therefore, since that principle is applied in the Western District Court this time, it's probably a position where they can't actively defend against this, so it's a pity for the mobile workers. Is it blocked in the upper floors? Take a look at this in the case of the United States. For example, if a lawmaker crosses over after setting up a police line, they handcuff him right away. That's how strong the public authority is. Why do you come to the police station and go on a rampage? There can be no such thing as an example of the law enforcement agency, but when there is a physical conflict, no one talks strongly about it. Since there are still human rights issues and loose parts when there is such a part, there is a very high possibility of clashes in such situations as rallies and weekly Saturday Gwanghwamun rallies until the end of the Constitutional Court trial, so special measures should be taken on the part related to the police's public power, and there can be no separation between the ruling and opposition parties, liberals and conservatives on this part. In the end, if this collapses, it means that democracy and the rule of law are at a critical point because beyond the collapse of all the discipline of society, democracy and the rule of law are collapsing.

[Choi Jin]
I'm telling you from a different angle, but I felt a bit sad rather than quite angry to see that 2030 was actively involved in the disturbance this time. First, if you look at the three things, first, the anger of young people in conflict and difficulty in employment and marriage is spreading in many ways, and second, whether young people are caught up in sedition politics in the political world. In a way, young people are no less than victims. Politicians should feel responsible, and thirdly, if you look at it from a positive perspective, the middle class, centered on the 2030s, has been acting as voters behind the scenes and has now begun to take the lead in politics. Therefore, I think that the phenomena that will appear in the political front of the 2030s in the future are likely to appear in politics, economy, society, and culture as a whole. I would like to say that there are as many concerns as there are positive aspects in that young people are likely to stand up and jump into the political front line in the wake of that violence.

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
It's hard to see it like that, because when we participate in a rally or something, we classify it into two axes. One is whether or not you obeyed the law. There is an axis of law and illegality and another axis of spontaneity and mobilization. However, if voluntary participation is legal, it is necessary for democracy to some extent, but we still need to look at the results of the investigation, but this participation, which is not voluntary but illegal when mobilized, should be punished by any generation. The reason I'm telling you now is not the suspect who participated in the 2030s, but the part that needs to be clearly pointed out when talking about why this happened is that the Democratic Party of Korea is trying to use the power it has shown so far and further lead this part excessively.

In severe cases, everything is led, and impeachment clearly implies its own resistance to impeachment, so not only the conservative camp, but also the progressive camp and the Democratic Party should not criticize the other person for the situation, but I also say that the voice of self-reflection should come from within the Democratic Party.

[Anchor]
As you said, there are many criticisms that the political community itself is not free from responsibility in this incident. Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun's remarks were controversial, and there was a testimony that Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun called the head of the Gangnam Police Station and said, "Please take good care of the performers."

[KIM HYEONGJUN]
But I think that's also a matter of timing. Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun says that when he asks for it, it's long before the disturbance, and it's wrong to connect it directly to the disturbance, but since that's lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun's one-sided argument, we also need to see at what point he made the request. So, if you talk about whether it was someone who crossed the wall or the disturbance after a long time, or at what point did you talk about it, for example, I instigated it, and furthermore, there is a problem, but if I tell you a little bit now, President Trump took office yesterday.

That's a surprise. Because after the election, it became as if President Trump was inciting the person who invaded the Capitol behind his back, and he was eventually accused of that, right? But in the end, what the U.S. Foreign Ministry said was that even he was in office, so everything was allowed to run for president.

So you don't know what politicians are going to say or incite, but you have to think very carefully about what kind of repercussions this will bring, and look at it now. There are people who say such nonsense to the extent that some supreme council members dare to describe the disturbance as a temple. How can this be justified? I think that it is unacceptable and that if there is an attitude of protecting democracy, such remarks should be made with caution.

[Anchor]
A quick break came in, and this is the news from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. With President Yoon Suk Yeol announcing his attendance at the Constitutional Court, I was interested in whether the job offer would be made in the morning, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said during a briefing that it is difficult to get a job in the morning. And yesterday afternoon, I sent an official letter prohibiting sending and receiving correspondence to the detention center, and this story has now been heard from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is briefing right now, and when we receive new news from the site, we will synthesize it again and deliver it to you. This is the end of Jungkook's situation. So far, I have been with Kim Hyung-joon, chair professor at Baejae University, and Choi Jin, president of the Presidential Leadership Institute. Thank you.