President Yoon arrives at the Constitutional Court...Attendance at the 3rd hearing date

■ Host: anchor Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Starring: Cha Jin-ah, professor of law at Korea University, lawyer Kim Kwang-sam

* 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]
In a little while, President Yoon, who is involved in the third hearing of the impeachment trial, will attend in person from 2 p.m. The president arrived at the Constitutional Court a little while ago. Tensions inside and outside the Constitutional Court are also rising as supporters gather to call for the dismissal of President Yoon's impeachment. Today, we are joined by Cha Jin-ah, professor of law at Korea University, and lawyer Kim Kwang-sam. Please come in. President Yoon, although he has delivered such a message to the public and captured the image of President Yoon from a distance in some media outlets, he will make his first public appearance since the declaration of the emergency martial law today, right?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
In fact, it has not been decided whether the president will attend in person today and express his or her thoughts. But in fact, didn't President Yoon's lawyer continue to convey that the president will attend the impeachment trial in person? However, it seems that he has made up his mind that he will attend today late at 9:55 p.m. last night. So, since I made a decision around 10 p.m., one of the most important issues when the president tries to appear at the judging committee is the security issue. So maybe the security guard moved quickly, and if the president said he would attend, he should inform the Constitutional Court of this.

In that way, the Constitutional Court should plan things like whether it is a security guard around the Constitutional Court or a proceeding process in the judgment. It looks like it's going to be revealed for the first time today, but it's not being broadcast live. I'm probably not going to edit this because the full video will be recorded and then broadcasted. Then, there is a high possibility that what the president said at the impeachment trial today will be conveyed to the people without addition or subtraction, I think so.

[Anchor]
As you said, he made this decision at around 9:55 p.m. last night and informed the Constitutional Court. What do you think is the reason for this decision in a surprise move?

[Chajinah]
Perhaps because President Yoon has consistently expressed his opinion that he will actively attend the hearings in the impeachment proceedings, and because he was arrested by an arrest warrant from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, he was not able to attend the hearing last time, but he is now being held in a detention center, so he seems to have decided to attend.

[Anchor]
It's 1:53:50 now. The defense will begin at 2 p.m. in a little while, but the president arrived almost immediately when the arrest warrant was reviewed last weekend. I think we arrived quickly today and are waiting?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
There's a trial schedule. Next, there's a question about security. It looks a little different from the previous warrant review, you can see it like this. And I don't know how the Constitutional Court will probably put the president on standby if he arrives half an hour ago. However, in general, the principle of national equality should take the same approach, but to some extent, he is still a sitting president. There is a high possibility that a certain place will be provided to honor the president. Isn't it that the president talked to himself for 45 minutes during the last warrant review? And there is a high possibility that there will be a similar scene in the impeachment trial today. So anyway, it can be seen as almost the same or the same as what the charges were during the last warrant review and the reason for the impeachment.

So, regarding that part, the problem of the reason for the impeachment, so as we know, it was inevitable because it was a national emergency, or whether it was an emergency or not. And this was a cautionary tale.I think I'm going to say things like, "Lalji is a rigged election." Since the president is known to be such an eloquent speaker, I think there is a high possibility that the president will make a statement for a fairly long time today.

[Anchor]
I'll give you another breaking news that just came in. We have about five minutes left. Breaking news has been heard that the National Assembly's representatives have entered the Constitutional Court's grand judgment. Lawyers for Chung Chung-rae, Kim Yi-soo, Kim Jin-han, and Jang Soon-wook are said to have been seated, and President Yoon is said to have not yet entered the grand jury. There were also questions about security inside the Constitutional Court, but the Constitutional Court's position is also now that it will conduct security in cooperation with the security agency and the police. In fact, he told me about the president's courtesy.Ma was also interested in what he was dressed like today, but he will come to the Constitutional Court wearing a suit, not a prison uniform. And then I won't even kick the rope. This is something that's been considered, right?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
I'm probably not going to wear a reception suit. Especially politicians and presidents. In fact, wearing a prison uniform is humiliating in a way. And because it can give the image of a crime, most people, except for the average citizen, the defendants on trial, always wear suits or plain clothes when they come to court. Furthermore, the President will be very sensitive about that. So I have no choice but to look at it like this, saying that I won't wear a reception suit. However, as for the courtesy, the security itself is the incumbent president, although his duties have been suspended. It is true that the law on presidential security should be applied. However, I don't know the extent to which this will be done because of the Constitutional Court's payment. And don't the general public draw and enter the referee's court itself? So, since another mishap can occur there, as a result, the security is inevitably very thorough, I think you can see it like this.

[Anchor]
The screen you're looking at is the president just now riding in a convoy into the underground parking lot of the Constitutional Court. The president was not captured on camera. It's a situation where security vehicles and security personnel are being seen. Professor, it's the first time in the history of the constitution since the martial law incident, and it's the first time. You're using these expressions one after another, and it's also the first time that an incumbent president will attend an impeachment trial, right?

[Chajinah]
That's right. So far, three impeachment proceedings have been conducted or are in progress against the president. The president of Roh Moo Hyun or the president of Park Geun Hye only had delegates present and he did not attend in person. However, President Yoon seems to judge that it is in his favor to attend the Constitutional Court hearing and explain directly why he declared the emergency martial law.

[Anchor]
Then, since former President Roh Moo Hyun or former President Park Geun Hye did not attend the Constitutional Court in the past, so there seems to be no obligation to attend or to attend the impeachment, but can the advantages and disadvantages vary depending on the attendance? How do you see it?

[Chajinah]
According to the Constitutional Court Act, you are required to attend the hearing date. However, in order to prevent delays in the hearing process, if you do not appear on the hearing date, you are required to designate a date again, and if you do not appear after that, you can proceed with the hearing without the party, so you did not appear on the first hearing date, right? And he did not appear on the 2nd pleading day, but his representatives attended at that time. So, as far as I know, the defense proceeded as it was.

[Anchor]
Then, are you saying that you're supposed to be in attendance means you're obligated to be in attendance?

[Chajinah]
The impeachment trial process is a kind of special disciplinary procedure rather than an obligation to attend, and to make a statement on this hearing date is to exercise the right to defend, so it can be interpreted that the aspect of guaranteeing the right to defend is greater.

[Anchor]
As it is almost 2 p.m., which is the scheduled time, there is a breaking news that President Yoon Suk Yeol has entered the Constitutional Court's grand judgment.

[Anchor]
It is now reported that the president's representatives along with the president of Yoon Suk Yeol have also entered the grand jury. What position will President Yoon express himself today?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
As I said earlier, your position will be the same as in the last warrant review. I think that's why the president is like that. He seems to be very sure about the reasons and requirements for his emergency martial law. So, even though he was impeached after the emergency martial law, he did not take a step back from his position. And nothing has changed at all. As such, I think there is a need for emergency martial law to be urgently implemented.

Moreover, I think that not only the requirements of the emergency martial law are met, but also that I am very confident in election fraud. So if you're not so sure, you can't say so firmly in the warrant review whether it's actually an impeachment trial. But I'm so sure that I have a lot of intention to persuade the warrant judge and the constitutional judges of the impeachment trial with my own story based on my conviction. That's why the impeachment trial date has been set until the 8th date.

In some cases, there is a high possibility that it will continue until the 8th round. You'll probably have a chance to talk about what you're going to say today. Because I attended the impeachment trial for the first time. However, after President Yoon's statement is officially over, we will start investigating the evidence. So, it can be said that the impeachment trial will begin in earnest, and as a result, the investigation of evidence will be conducted a lot of witness examinations. The second is to comment on the facts, whether it's a document request or not, so there's not much opportunity for the president to say something. However, in President Yoon's style, he is likely to express his thoughts and opinions on the evidence every time he investigates the evidence.

[Anchor]
It was reported that President Yoon was dressed in a navy suit when he completed his enlistment a little while ago. There was also a breaking news that we have completed seating in the front seat. And the screen you see is around the Constitutional Court, where the pleading date is underway. You can see it far away, but about 100m of buses from the police station are standing on both sides of the main gate of the Constitutional Court. There is now news that two of the four-lane roads in front of the Constitutional Court have been occupied by police buses. Thousands of police have been deployed to protect security here. The third round of impeachment hearings attended by President Yoon

The news just came out that it started a while ago. With the police currently controlling the vicinity of the Constitutional Court and controlling the direction of Paradise Shopping Center at the Anguk Station intersection on Samil-daero, they are currently preparing for such an unexpected disturbance by protesters. The news just broke that the third argument began a while ago. I heard that today's impeachment trial is an open trial that allows ordinary citizens to attend, but is there a standard for this?

[Chajinah]
No. Originally, pleading is a public pleading that everyone can attend. That's why all other constitutional courts' arguments can be attended by ordinary citizens. However, since the pleading in the impeachment trial process against President Yoon is of such high public interest, there may be so many citizens who want to attend the hearing, so the space is limited, so the number of people is limited, and the pleading itself is originally supposed to be disclosed.

[Anchor]
Isn't today the third day of pleading? What kind of discussions or procedures are usually held here?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
But today itself will probably do something that we couldn't do during the 2nd preparation period. So first of all, it doesn't seem that all the issues are sorted out at that time, and after doing those things, the most important thing today is the investigation of evidence. That's why both sides applied for witnesses. So, for that witness, it has already been adopted, and it is stated according to the schedule that the witness will be examined when and when on the judgment date. Since the president has applied for more than 24 to 25 witnesses, the National Assembly must have submitted a CCTV related to the NEC and the National Assembly in this regard. Then, I think it will be a place to discuss how to adopt this part and how to evaluate verification.

[Anchor]
You're looking at the screen you're looking at, where President Yoon was present at the court a little while ago. This is President Yoon's first public appearance since the martial law incident. This is President Yoon wearing a navy suit and a red tie and sitting in the respondent's seat. I'm sitting in the front seat. I'm wearing a wine-colored and purple tie and looking very neat today. According to the news just now, President Yoon bowed his head to the first question, "Did the respondent come out?" In the back, the lawyers are sitting down.

You're looking at the screen you're looking at, the Constitutional Court's Supreme Court decision a little while ago. Except for the statements made public after the last emergency martial law incident, so this is President Yoon's first appearance in public. Appeared on the third hearing of the Constitutional Court. Even when he was arrested, he was arrested in a suit, but he is now wearing a different costume than then. And he's sitting in his seat with a calm look on his face.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
At the time of the last arrest warrant, the suit was wearing a blue shirt under a no-tie. But of course, interviews are limited. It's supposed to be done through a lawyer, but it's probably possible to do things like clothes or underwear. So in that regard, it seems that he changed his suit and attended today.

[Anchor]
You're watching President Yoon Suk Yeol sitting in the front seat of the president, the respondent's seat. A moment ago, there was a scene where everyone stood up and greeted each other, but it seems to be a regular procedure to greet each other with judges, right?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
I didn't greet the judge. Before the judgment, the Constitutional Court judges come in. If you enter and sit in your seat, you are supposed to stand up when you enter before you sit down. So, if you greet them while standing up and the constitutional judges sit down, you would have taken the form of being the president and all the lawyers sitting down.

[Anchor]
I think President Yoon's remarks have begun now. We will continue to deliver it as a breaking news, but President Yoon reportedly said he was sorry for making me suffer from my impeachment case. And it is said that he began his remarks today by saying that he has lived with the firm conviction of liberal democracy. I also showed you whispering with the lawyers now. Professor, you just saw the screen. How did you see it?

[Chajinah]
The process of declaring emergency martial law seems to be a judgment that it would be quite persuasive if you actively participate in arguments while arguing about allegations of fraudulent elections, paralysis of the administration's functions due to the abuse of impeachment, and some of the judicial functions due to the failure to elect judges of the Constitutional Court.

In particular, President Yoon's claim seems to be part of the requirements for issuing emergency martial law under martial law. Therefore, one of the requirements for issuing emergency martial law is that the performance of administrative and judicial functions is remarkably difficult due to extreme disturbance in social order. I think I'll strongly argue that that's the case. However, because these arguments do not meet other requirements on the back and forth, it seems difficult to meet the requirements in the situation of issuing an emergency martial law called wartime events or equivalent national emergencies, except for that part, and it is expected to be strongly argued that the requirements are met.

[Anchor]
Let me explain what President Yoon said a little while ago. Earlier, I said that I have lived with a firm belief in liberal democracy. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court also exists to protect the Constitution. And if you have any questions, I will tell you directly, it is said to have mentioned this.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
We didn't express what we thought for as long as we did during the warrant review. However, from what has been released so far, I think he said that he was sorry for being impeached like this. I talked about the liberal democratic conviction. Therefore, martial law itself was done by the belief of liberal democracy. And the Constitutional Court judges whether or not to be dismissed. Then, please make a good judgment on this national emergency caused by the Constitutional Court based on the belief of liberal democracy because the Constitutional Court is an institution that protects the Constitution. So I don't think I've talked about it in detail.

So I talked in principle, and lastly, if you have any questions, ask me questions. From what I said, today is the first time we face the judges at the court. That's why I think I'm saving my words today. Then, if the judgment is made in earnest, there is a high possibility that he will directly refute each one and make his argument, persuade the Constitutional Court justice, and go in this direction.

[Anchor]
In fact, when I saw the president's statements and videos that have been released so far, I saw a lot of people who seemed to be expressing their thoughts without hesitation, but since today's remarks have been recorded and released later, as the lawyer said, it is the first time to face the judges, so I will be cautious. There are observations like this, what do you think about that, professor?

[Chajinah]
Because if you continue to appear in hearings, you'll have a chance to speak, and because it's a political message to your supporters, and because constitutional experts are quite different from their statements in the impeachment process of the Constitutional Court. So if you've used a lot of radical expressions and political expressions to your supporters, you'll have to be a little more careful because you'll have to focus on whether it's a requirement for impeachment or a declaration of a martial law.

[Anchor]
Just a moment ago, the Constitutional Court reportedly said it would proceed in the order of investigating the evidence after organizing the evidence. Then, will President Yoon's full-fledged defense order be prepared later?

[Chajinah]
Usually, when continuing the argument, the claimant first asserts the reason for impeachment, the judges ask questions about it, and the respondent then asserts it around the answer, and the judges then ask questions about whether to adopt the evidence, and then investigate the evidence. Today is the first time President Yoon himself appears in person, so I guess he gave me a chance to speak briefly at first.

[Anchor]
In fact, since President Yoon is a former prosecutor, he may be used to sitting on the other side, but how do you expect him to feel sitting on the respondent's side over there?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
It's probably disastrous. Aren't you a prosecutor and a prosecutor general? That's why you investigate the other person, take him to court, and then send him to prison or detention, and this is the main role of the prosecutor, right? But rather, it became the opposite position. So, although he is currently imprisoned in the Seoul Detention Center and is the incumbent president, he is a defendant in the impeachment trial, in criminal trials. That's what the defendant is doing. But we saw it when we entered.Ma thinks that this is really unfortunate in our constitutional history.

Moreover, it is very unfortunate from the perspective of the Republic of Korea that a president who is supposed to run state affairs at the Hannam-dong residence or the Yongsan presidential office is now accepted and is being impeached and judged by the Constitutional Court. It's unfortunate, but ironically, the fact that the president, who always investigated the other person and put him in the defendant's seat, is now in the opposite position, which makes me think a lot about it historically.

[Anchor]
President Yoon is said to have told the court that he will tell you directly if he has any questions. What do you think the court wants to ask President Yoon the most today?

[Chajinah]
These are the parts that the agents failed to answer properly in the last pleading date. Why did they send martial law troops to the National Assembly if they said it was just a warning after declaring an emergency martial law? I asked why they wanted to block the National Assembly, but the agents said they would submit it in a response later, but I think the most obvious answer is to ask President Yoon himself, who declared an emergency decree. So maybe those parts can be asked today or later.

[Anchor]
Isn't one of the reasons for the declaration of emergency martial law that President Yoon claims is the fraudulent election theory? How the Constitutional Court judges will accept this point. At the last hearing, I think there was a little talk about China. I think this part is important. There will be questions like this today, right?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
Perhaps from President Yoon's point of view, the most important reason for impeachment is related to the national emergency. Whether it is an wartime incident or a similar situation, this is the requirement of emergency martial law. Among those requirements, I think fraudulent elections are the most important. Therefore, they are constantly talking about fraudulent elections and sending martial law troops to the NEC on the premise of fraudulent elections, and given that witnesses have applied for evidence this time, they might be observers related to fraudulent elections. Next, it seems that they are probably checking the facts of various organizations related to the NEC.

So I think one of the important things according to the requirements of emergency martial law is fraudulent elections. Isn't it a violation of the Constitution because martial law is not required in the grounds for impeachment, and it's a crime of rebellion? So, it proves that it is a requirement, but among them, the president seems to think this is very important in a way to rigged elections. I don't think the Constitutional Court or the National Assembly thinks this is that important. Because the evidence is not clear and the NEC denied it, and even though they have been accused several times before, they have all been treated as innocent. However, if this is a very important requirement for the respondent president, he cannot just ignore it and go to the Constitutional Court.

So as a result, who is responsible for proving it? He's in the presidential office. Because by everyday reasoning, there is nothing certain to believe that there was a rigged election. Then the president has to prove it. So, the Constitutional Court can't just reject this by saying that it's completely groundless and nothing because it's trying to prove fraudulent elections in any way, whether it's a server at the NEC or not. Then, I think there is a high possibility that the president will at least release some evidence of it and judge it by hearing it.

[Anchor]
And on the previous pleading day, the Constitutional Court asked President Yoon how he put military and police into the National Assembly and the NEC, so can this question be asked again today?

[Chajinah]
Perhaps because he is present in person, why did he block the National Assembly in relation to the purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly, which is considered important in criminal trials, especially in relation to whether or not the crime of rebellion is established? And one of the biggest issues is whether he ever ordered lawmakers to be detained in order to prevent them from exercising their right to demand the lifting of martial law. In particular, President Yoon's remarks and arguments said, "He declared emergency martial law just to warn the National Assembly of various legislative rioters, budget cuts, abuse of impeachment rights," but why did he send armed soldiers to the National Assembly if he wanted to warn them? This is the part where you can think it's not right to speak. So that's one of the biggest issues, and that's already been present, so maybe we can ask again today because the judge asked the delegation before that.

[Anchor]
There are issues that need to be witnesses today, and there are issues that are not perfect, so are you in an atmosphere where you can freely fight with each other at the court today on areas where the opinions of the various sides can differ?

[Chajinah]
There is little possibility of proceeding with the procedure in such a manner. Perhaps, for each issue, the issues have already been sorted out over the second period of preparation for the pleading, and in the last pleading period, there are a number of issues that have been selected and confirmed. So, I think it will probably go through the process of checking the issues that have not been explained yet, or that there are conflicting claims or objective circumstances and statements with President Yoon's agency after prosecution.

[Anchor]
It just came out in a graphic on the left. It has been designated until the 8th hearing date on Tuesday and Thursday. President Yoon is said to be in this position, saying that he would attend everything if possible. Professor, what do you think the president's position and attitude will be like for the result? in terms of gain and truth

[Chajinah]
So, from the perspective of many constitutional research experts, I think that it can be a double-edged sword for President Yoon to appear on the pleading day every time. This is because President Yoon's explanation of why he has declared emergency martial law is that he does not meet the requirements for declaring emergency martial law as a force in wartime events or equivalent national emergencies, even if it is true, such as allegations of fraudulent elections, excessive impeachment, and budget cuts.

So, it is objectively clear that it does not meet the requirements for declaring emergency martial law, but it is an explanation of why President Yoon made a mistake that it meets the requirements for declaring emergency martial law, so politically, explaining and appealing to supporters about allegations of election fraud and paralysis of administrative functions caused by the abuse of impeachment can have considerable political appeal.E is uncertain whether the Constitutional Court's proceedings will convince the justices, so there seems to be a considerable possibility that they will not have such a positive impact. However, if you continue to attend the hearing every time and announce your arguments, you can get the effect of such supporters rallying politically.

[Anchor]
The screen you're looking at is around the Constitutional Court at this time. It looks like it's near Anguk Station. From this morning on the basis of Anguk Station, there are police buses in the end lanes of all the cars from Yulgok Tunnel to Gyeongbokgung Palace to Jongno 3-ga. As you can see, supporters of President Yoon are continuing their rallies by waving the Korean flag. Currently, the police have mobilized 4,000 task force members to block the area near the Constitutional Court. The lower part of the screen you see is the way from Jongno Paradise Shopping Center to the upper part of the Constitutional Court. So you're looking at the Anguk Station intersection right now. If you look at the bottom, you're seeing protesters protesting, and you're seeing police forces in fluorescent clothes under control. It is currently understood that a stronger control line has been established compared to the Western District Court. The lawyer will continue to tell you.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
Constitutional Court trials and criminal trials are different. The criminal trial has to set the sentence for the accused. Are you guilty or innocent? If you are guilty, the process of determining how to sentence you is a criminal trial process, and the constitutional trial process determines whether the president's emergency martial law is a reason for violating the Constitution and laws or a serious reason. That's why the president appears in court every time.Whether it's Ralji or something about denying the impeachment or producing evidence that is not related to the reason for the impeachment does not affect the outcome in itself.

Because it's about judging whether the constitution and the law were violated based on the time of the emergency martial law, so in criminal trials, whether you're denying it or talking nonsense about evidence, it can affect your sentence. However, the Constitutional Court trial is not a procedure for determining a sentence. So, I deny the reason for the prosecution, whether they apply for a lot of relevant evidence or not.In some cases, delaying the prosecution process does not affect the outcome in itself.

It's a constitutional court judgment that objectively considers only violations of the constitution and laws, and this is different from a criminal trial. Regarding the previous question, the question of why you asked the question because it is just the beginning of the trial is not in the right stage. So we can ask a light question whether we're in the process of investigating evidence. However, the essential question is what kind of process it goes through, and if there are cases where it is questionable whether it is evidence investigation or not, the chief justice of the Constitutional Court will ask the question. So today, we're not in a situation where we're going to exchange big questions, but we can do it lightly. But the essential question is, I'm not going to ask you that in detail today, I see it like this.

[Anchor]
As you said, the Constitutional Court now seems to be in the process of hearing the president's answer before investigating the evidence, especially regarding the decree 1, but the president was not willing to enforce the martial law decree. And it is said that the decree No. 1 was intended to take the form of martial law. And it was aimed at prohibiting the National Assembly from engaging in illegal activities against such suspicions as whether it paralyzed the National Assembly. And it was not intended to ban normal parliamentary activities, but to ban illegal activities, it took the position that the decree No. 1 came into force. It is also said that the lawyer and the president exchanged opinions several times during the defense.

In addition, the court also received a breaking news that Minister of Public Administration and Security Lee Sang-min and Senior Secretary for Economic Affairs Park Chun-seop were adopted as witnesses. Professor, you just heard the president's story about the decree, so I think it was a formal procedure. So it's to take the form of martial law, and I didn't actually intend to put the decree into action. How did you like it?

[Chajinah]
That's actually the most problematic thing in Proclamation No. 1 is Article 1. It is a phrase that prohibits all political activities of the National Assembly among Article 1. This is a very important phrase because I can say that the purpose of civil war in the crime of civil war, that is, the purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly, is the provision prohibiting all political activities of the National Assembly under Article 1, No. 1 of this decree. As far as I know, there was a very problem with why the phrase prohibiting all political activities of the National Assembly was added, but I didn't pay much attention to it.

That's why Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun copied it wrong, and I just overlooked it because I was careless about it, and if you look at it, the content to be censored is supposed to be controlled and censored by all media, but I had no intention of implementing it. I think we need to see again how convincing that argument will sound. If you look at it in person, it's true that we didn't control the media. So, whether it is only the National Assembly part of Article 1 or all of them in general, we have to consider this by article, and in particular, the part that says we will punish striking medical doctors if they do not return after returning, was actually not included in the existing martial law decree, so I think the answer to this part would be quite poor. Therefore, it is possible that such content of the martial law declaration itself was in Article 1 of the preparation documents for martial law in the existing military. So, even if you just knew and copied it because you had to go into Article 1 of course, you don't have to check that part again, but for now, the argument itself sounds weak.

[Anchor]
Isn't former Minister Kim Yong-hyun scheduled to appear as a witness on the hearing day after tomorrow? Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun claims that he wrote the draft decree, but the president reviewed it. Will this argument affect the judgment of this court?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
But as a result, it is true that the decree was proclaimed. So it doesn't really matter who wrote it and who reviewed it because they knew all the contents. And it was the president who declared the emergency decree, and even if the former minister Kim Yong-hyun wrote about the decree, and the president overlooked the No. 1, didn't the decree end up being declared and martial law was declared? And martial law troops also went to the National Assembly. So it seems that we are investigating the evidence against Pogoryeong 1. So, the way to investigate the evidence is that proclamation No. 1 is strong evidence for the reason for impeachment in the emergency martial law.

Then, while presenting the decree No. 1, the Constitutional Court would have asked what the respondent's opinion on this was. So, probably, decree No. 1 itself admits, but there was no intention of decree No. 1, only to meet the requirements of martial law, the National Assembly's political activities were prohibited in decree No. 1, and this is really prohibited.I think he's arguing that he didn't mean to neutralize the National Assembly. But since it's in the decree itself, isn't this already proclaimed as well?

So it's just an opinion, and it's consistent with what the president has argued so far. Martial law itself was intended to give some warning, and even if it was stated in the decree, it was not intended to ban the political activities of the National Assembly. But the reason why this part is important is that if the emergency martial law itself tries to violate the constitution or law, there must be a controversy over the constitution. Then, the national constitutional controversy eventually neutralizes the National Assembly, and even if there is such a provision in the decree, the president claims that we did not intend to neutralize the National Assembly.

[Anchor]
So, the Constitutional Court makes a judgment based on the purpose of the national constitution. So you're emphasizing that there was no such purpose, right?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
That's right. Did you really intend to ban political activities in the National Assembly? Then if you say there was, it's a confession. Then I had the purpose of the National Constitution, which is what happens, so from the president's point of view, we had no purpose of the National Constitution, we were just trying to warn, we didn't use force against the National Assembly, we were just trying to ban the illegal political activities of the National Assembly.

[Anchor]
And it is said that the justice department adopted Minister of Public Administration Lee Sang-min and Senior Secretary for Economic Affairs Park Chun-seop as witnesses, but what specific issues are these two witnesses?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
I don't know. There's a bit of a two-sided aspect. So in the case of Minister Lee Sang-min, he attended the Cabinet meeting. I attended, but it is not a decision to deliberate at the Cabinet meeting, but it is a requirement of emergency martial law to deliberate. I don't know if it's something like this or not. On the president's side, how much did the Minister of Public Administration and Security know about emergency martial law? And there could be cases like this. This is a typical assumption. If I tried to do martial law, I tried to control the police through the Minister of Public Administration and Security, but what the Minister of Public Administration and Security did is not shown in it. That's why the Minister of Public Administration and Security Lee Sang-min, who is a member of the State Council, has room to become an important witness, whether it is the National Assembly or the president.

[Anchor]
Of course, it is something the Constitutional Court should judge, but there were CCTV videos that were adopted as evidence at the 2nd hearing date. For example, there were some CCTVs such as the National Assembly, the NEC, the National Assembly speaker's official residence, and today, but isn't there an aspect of the president's claim that he didn't intend to do so and such CCTV footage? How does the Constitutional Court look at this?

[Chajinah]
In particular, it is the National Assembly that is important in relation to the purpose of the national constitution or rebellion. Was he trying to block the National Assembly? by mobilization of military and police In the end, was he trying to prevent members of the National Assembly from attending school? This is important. If you look at the CCTV footage of the military, martial law, and police forces, and the movement of these troops, you can see when they first ordered them to enter, when they actually arrived, and what actions they did when they arrived at the National Assembly. They tried to block the National Assembly, but they failed to block the plan because of the heavy and insufficient number of troops, as Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun said, and they didn't intend to block it from the beginning, but only a few troops were sent to scare them. The fact that the National Assembly Speaker is representing the National Assembly and presiding over the plenary session of the National Assembly is important. If such a speaker is in the official residence, it is not clear now whether he was trying to block the speaker of the National Assembly and lock him up there, or for what purpose he sent martial law troops to the official residence of the speaker.

And the martial law forces sent to the NEC were probably to conduct illegal raids, such as the degree and timing of the troops sent, and in the case of the martial law forces sent to the NEC, they took guns equipped with live ammunition, but I think these are probably verification procedures.

[Anchor]
If you look at the screen now, you can see President Yoon on the left when the emergency martial law was declared on December 3rd of last month. On the right is a picture of the president present at the Constitutional Court today. It's quite similar. The appearance of wearing a navy suit and a red tie now looks very similar to today when martial law was declared. Lawyer, what do you think is the meaning or intention here that makes you wonder if it's the same outfit? What do you think?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
First of all, the tie will be more meaningful than other suits. Red means conservatism. Isn't it a color that symbolizes the power of the people? So I think it means that you are the president of the conservative party. In the past, when meeting CEO Lee Jae-myung, President Yoon wore a slightly red necktie, and Lee Jae-myung wore a blue necktie. So it's the same in the United States and in our country, but most politicians mark colors with ties around the world. So today, I think that tie itself means that I'm still the president of conservatives. At the same time, I think he wore a red tie to show his robustness.

[Anchor]
If I have to give it another meaning, I think that the intention was to claim the legitimacy of the martial law on December 3rd. There was also news that President Yoon applied for more than two dozen additional witnesses in connection with the impeachment trial, and many members of the State Council belonged at the time. I'm sure the members of the State Council have applied for witnesses as someone who can make a statement in favor of President Yoon, right, professor?

[Chajinah]
Yes, if you look at the members of the State Council who applied for witnesses, they are Lee Sang-min, former Minister of Public Administration and Security, or Prime Minister Han Deok-soo and acting President Choi Sang-mok, who are said to have been adopted as witnesses. These are people who attended the Cabinet meeting, but what matters is how badly the administration's function has been hit by budget cuts. This is also linked to the adoption of witnesses to Park Joon-seop, senior presidential secretary for economic affairs. President Yoon's consistent argument has made it remarkably difficult to perform administrative and judicial functions. due to the National Assembly's heavy congestion I'm just asserting this. We're mainly talking about the budget cuts and the misuse of the impeachment prosecution as reasons for the significant difficulty in carrying out such administrative functions. Especially in the case of Acting President Choi Sang-mok and Senior Secretary for Economic Affairs Park Chun-seop, they seemed to think that they could prove such budget cuts in the first place. And in the case of Prime Minister Han Deok-soo, he can testify to these things, especially in the position of controlling and coordinating state affairs, but he is not the one who was impeached?

Although it's after the emergency martial law. In that regard, I can tell you the part where the state administration is paralyzed, and Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, is also a person who is currently suspended from his duties due to the impeachment. So, as a person who returned to his duty after being impeached and dismissed, I guess these people, and former Minister of Public Administration and Security Lee Sang-min, are expected to actively testify about the fact that the abuse of such impeachment causes such serious damage as paralysis of administrative functions.

[Anchor]
I will summarize the remarks made by the president and the National Assembly at the Constitutional Court hearing. First of all, the president explained the background of the declaration of the emergency martial law. The opposition party has indiscriminately cut the budget, which is an act of national constitution. In addition, the budget, including special expenses for the prosecution and police, was zero won, but this is obstruction of investigation. It is also known that he claimed that he also cut the budget for R&D majors' support projects. And he never ordered the arrest of legal professionals, nor did he order the arrest of Han Dong-hoon and Woo Won-sik. The president is said to have claimed that the order to arrest politicians is absurd fake news. It is said that the National Assembly is also emphasizing the injustice of martial law based on the stenographic records of current issues. I'm explaining the book report. He presented media articles, etc., and this news has also been reported, but he is explaining the summary of the evidence, what does this mean, lawyer?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
I'm submitting a certificate as some evidence that it's a certificate. So, if you submit it in a document, I think explaining why you submit this document, what this is to prove, is a documentary statement. But now that I look at it, I think the National Assembly, which has filed an impeachment, and then the president is probably debating it through the answer and the impeachment. That's why I think I'm answering that. Looking at the breaking news right now. So overall, I think the president is stating the gist of the response, although I'm not sure because we're not in there. That's why the president's opinions keep coming out. It's a rebuttal to the impeachment motion. It looks like that. There are some that I kept checking the facts in the future.

In particular, the National Assembly has requested a certified copy of the investigation records, so the investigation records must also come, and the witnesses will first be the commander of the defense or former Minister Kim Yong-hyun, and the date of the witness examination will be set until the next date and February 6. Since the president has applied for more than 20 witnesses today, the president will probably organize these things today as to what witnesses he will adopt, what witnesses he will not adopt, and whether it is necessary to judge the reasons for impeachment or not.

So I can go through the evidence accordingly, and in my opinion, I can reserve some evidence for the next date, and in some cases. So today's evidence investigation is likely to be almost finished. Then, I think that there is a high possibility that we will go through a formal investigation of evidence, that is, whether it is a witness interrogation, whether it is a CCTV, or something like this.

[Anchor]
Today's hearing date is not being broadcast live, and the contents mentioned there are now reported as breaking news, so we have no choice but to make an estimate based on the contents, but the National Assembly said this. NEC Chairman Roh Tae-ak testified of illegality in connection with the takeover of the NEC's server. And he claimed that it was different from the note obtained by the investigative agency and the acting chief Choi Sang-mok. And acting Choi Sang-mok, a memo statement on securing financial liquidity, so what is this about?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
That in itself is related to an emergency. So, in a way, cutting the budget itself, not giving special funds to the investigative agency itself, which paralyzes state administration and confuses the state. Then, among the requirements of martial law, an emergency or equivalent, a wartime event, or such a huge national emergency, is not necessarily a national emergency when someone invades by force, or confusion and unrest occur in society. In order to prevent him from performing his duties as a president, the government should cut the budget, impeach him, and continue to exercise his right to veto the law, and the National Assembly should commit legislative violence. It seems that he is making that argument to do so.

[Chajinah]
However, the important note of acting authority Choi Sang-mok came from the National Assembly, and the acting authority Choi Sang-mok was the Minister of Strategy and Finance at the time. What I said at the time was that I received a note from President Yoon. On top of that, do it to secure financial liquidity after you can't remember the details and declare an emergency decree. Because there could be problems with exchange rates and things like that, and there could be a second IMF, so he accepted it, and he said, "I don't remember anything else." But later, on a note secured by the investigative agency, secure a budget for the emergency legislative body. And cut off the National Assembly's money line, it said on the note.

So if it's correct that the note has such a content, this is directly connected to the purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly, which is also important in establishing the crime of rebellion. So, cutting off the budget to prevent the National Assembly's activities is linked to the purpose of neutralizing the National Assembly, and if the National Assembly does not allow legislative activities, create an emergency legislative body like the National Security Council in the fifth construction and make it work, there is a part that can be read as this.

So this note is important because it relates to the purpose of civil war in the crime of civil war, so it is speculated that the acting president Choi Sang-mok claims that the actual contents of the note are different from the testimony of the Minister of Economy and Finance at the National Assembly.

[Anchor]
Regarding the emergency legislative body you just mentioned, will it be something that can be clarified if former Minister Kim Yong-hyun attends the hearing day in two days? What do you think?

[Kim Kwang Sam]
You're talking about a note related to acting authority Choi Sang-mok.

[Anchor]
The note of the emergency legislative body you just mentioned.

[Kim Kwang Sam]
The reason why the emergency legislative body is one of the most important things is that decree No. 1 prohibits political activities of the National Assembly. However, the last time Acting Chief Executive Choi Sang-mok came to the National Assembly, he received a note from the president. So I don't know if I got it directly from the president or from the person next to the president. But what it says is to block all budgets related to the National Assembly. And it says, "Supply the budget for emergency legislative bodies." Then, if you look at the note itself, it should neutralize the National Assembly, shut down all the doors, and create an emergency legislative body to replace it, just like proclamation No. 1. I have no choice but to make it and set a budget for it.

That's why Acting President Choi Sang-mok received it from the president, but former Minister Kim Yong-hyun has controversy over who wrote it. Did the president write it himself or did former Minister Kim Yong-hyun write it himself? Maybe this part, too, will be buried if former Minister Kim Yong-hyun comes out as a witness on the next date. Consequently, it doesn't really matter who wrote it. Because if the president knew the contents and delivered the note, he actually ordered such an order even if the president did not write it.

The same goes for former Minister Kim Yong-hyun. If you say you didn't write it yourself, you can say that you were completely involved in it, but former Minister Kim Yong-hyun has already announced whether he will order to speak to other martial law leaders on the phone, so although it may be important evidence regarding the martial law note, depending on who wrote it, it cannot be impeached, and it is not that much evidence.

[Anchor]
I see. I will say hello here to lawyer Kim Kwang-sam who helped me today. Thank you.