President Yoon attends impeachment trial...Go to hospital after shutdown

■ Host: Yoo Da-won Anchor, Kim Myung-geun Anchor
■ Starring: Attorney Kim Sung-soo

* 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]
Let's take a closer look at the third round of impeachment hearings attended by President Yoon Suk Yeol in person with experts. I will be with lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Please come in. You saw it earlier.Ma attended the third hearing of the impeachment trial today. It's the first time among former and current presidents, right?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. First of all, there have been three impeachment cases in our constitutional history. There was a case against the late President Roh Moo Hyun in 2004 and an impeachment case against President Park Geun Hye in 2017. And this is the third time, and in the two cases mentioned earlier, the presidents were not present, so this is the first impeachment case in which the president attended in person in constitutional history.

[Anchor]
Unlike former President Roh Moo Hyun and former President Park Geun Hye, what do you think is the reason and background for attending the hearing in person?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think it will be difficult to accurately grasp that part. However, I watched the video today. In the case of the Constitutional Court, the video comes up after the conclusion. So I came while watching the video, and what I felt while watching it was that the National Assembly and the claimant were also conducting the trial in earnest, and President Yoon, the respondent, seemed to have many answers that were not specific until the 2nd hearing date, but in this case, he began to argue in detail. As a result, there was a part where we could see that both sides were really conducting trials in earnest.

[Anchor]
Is it possible for such an active person to protest against his supporters and gain the upper hand in the public opinion battle?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I don't think I can say that. However, as I said, the video of the Constitutional Court itself will be released, so people will be able to see the logic of the National Assembly and the logic of the respondent, President Yoon Suk Yeol, on this video, and how to evaluate it. And since this part is legal and there have been allegations of fraudulent elections and other suspicions, we need to see how they claim these things. And what is noteworthy today is that the claimant will explain the impeachment case a little bit at the 2nd hearing. In the case of impeachment, if there is a violation of the Constitution or law and the violation of this part is serious, it is more important than national damage to dismiss it. Considering that the national interest is greater, the dismissal is greater. In order for this to happen, the violation of the Constitution or the law must be sorted out. And there are five reasons that the National Assembly is claiming right now. So to tell you this, there is one thing that violated martial law requirements. What this is like is that martial law is stipulated in Article 77 of the Constitution, and the president can declare martial law according to military needs as a force or when it is necessary to maintain public well-being in a war, incident, or similar national emergency. What the National Assembly now claims is that this was not a wartime incident or a national emergency. That's why there is one thing that this requirement has not been met, and the other thing is that there is a defect in the process of declaring martial law. If you look at the Constitution, Article 89 requires martial law to be declared after deliberation by the State Council. However, since there is no deliberation by the Cabinet on this part, this is also a violation of the procedure, and another attempt to paralyze the function of the National Assembly, wasn't there a military and police in the National Assembly that we saw at the time in the video? Regarding that, on the part of the National Assembly, because this is done to paralyze the function of the National Assembly, it falls under the Constitution, and this is also a violation of the Constitution. And isn't there Pogoryeong 1 for the fourth time? If we look at the decree No. 1, it prohibits the political activities of the National Assembly and political parties. That's what it was about. However, it was argued that this itself violates the Constitution because it violates the freedom of political activity and other basic rights.
And fifthly, the National Assembly claims that there have been such attempts to arrest key judicial figures, and there are parts that violate the independence of jurisdiction and the separation of powers. And lastly, in addition to these five reasons, when I saw these figures refusing to comply with arrest warrants, I argued that there was no will to protect the constitution. That's why it's a decision to prosecute this part, and the National Assembly is arguing about it, so the respondent, President Yoon Suk Yeol, should refute the facts or even if they admit the facts, but we have to look at the legal judgment on this differently. There are parts that can be argued now, so we have to look at these things. In today's case, the issue was stated as a document. The prosecution's decision was settled in the second round last time, and what the National Assembly did on today's anniversary was the evidence that it was a documentary evidence. I've given some evidence about this and I've explained to the Constitutional Court that these are meant to prove some things. So that could be very unique, and the respondent said five things related to this, right? As we talked about the facts that refute each of them and how we will prove the facts, this was the part where we could see that the trial was really going on in a surprise manner.

[Anchor]
The president attended the hearing today and refuted and argued on these five points, but before the opening of the hearing, President Yoon asked for a direct speech and expressed his position. Let's hear it and continue the story.

[President Yoon Suk Yeol: I am sorry to the judges for making you suffer from my impeachment case, even though your work has been aggravated by various constitutional lawsuits. I am a person who has lived firmly with one belief of liberal democracy, especially in public life since I grew up. As the Constitutional Court is also an institution that exists to protect the Constitution, I ask the judges to take a good look at it in many ways. ]

[Anchor]
In President Yoon's direct remarks, he has lived with a firm belief in liberal democracy. This stands out, but in what sense is this acceptable?

[Kim Sung-soo]
As I mentioned earlier, this part is related to the will to protect the constitution. Even if there is a violation of the constitution or law in this part, the situation of the violation may be serious or if there is no will to protect the constitution, but if not, it may not be dismissed. Therefore, it can be an issue, and liberal democracy itself can be seen as the basis of the spirit of our constitution. Therefore, having a firm belief in liberal democracy itself has the will to protect the constitution, and President Yoon Suk Yeol argues that martial law itself was an act to protect the constitution. Therefore, it can be seen as a statement that is in line with this part.

[Anchor]
It was an act to protect the constitution. Today, President Yoon denied all grounds for impeachment related to the emergency martial law incident.
Did this also emphasize once again the justification for the declaration of emergency rule?

[Kim Sung-soo]
In the end, allegations related to civil war were either attempted to paralyze the function of the National Constitution, or attempted to paralyze the function of the National Election Commission. In this regard, didn't I say that it was one of two things: denying the facts or denying the legal judgment, although acknowledging the facts, right? However, regarding this part, one stated that there was no such fact in relation to the civil war at the time, and the other is to talk about the legitimacy of the declaration. This is to argue that it was a national emergency at the time because the National Assembly argues that martial law was a violation of the Constitution even though there were no martial law requirements mentioned earlier.

[Anchor]
Also, the first thing we looked at was whether there was an attempt by the National Assembly to lift martial law by deploying military troops or to paralyze the function of the National Assembly among the five requirements mentioned earlier. President Yoon made another comment on this. Let's listen to it first.

[President Yoon Suk Yeol] If you put in the military to interfere with the decision that was made on the night of December 3rd and 4th, does that mean that you can no longer demand the lifting of martial law and that martial law goes on? I don't think so. In South Korea, the National Assembly and the media are much stronger than the president. If I force myself not to make a decision to lift martial law, I can do it in a place other than the National Assembly, and I can ask for the lifting of martial law as much as I want. If you block it, I don't think it's something you can handle. What I want to say is that it is not something that is blocked or prevented by acting at that time. ]

[Anchor]
I watched the video of the president, but in a word, I have never blocked the National Assembly's decision to lift martial law, and therefore did not cause civil war for the purpose of national constitution?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. As I said earlier, there are five reasons for voting, right? Among them, the National Assembly seems to have attempted to paralyze the function of the National Assembly, that there was a purpose of the National Constitution, and that they denied these parts, and that the grounds for this seem to have been mentioned according to various facts, so I think there will be a debate about how to prove each fact.

[Anchor]
Yoon's delegation also explained the reason for the introduction of the National Assembly's military, saying it was to inform the public of the ruinous behavior and to prepare for a situation where citizens flock. Can I look at this in the same context?

[Kim Sung-soo]
[Voiceover] Right, in this case, it's very similar to what President Yoon Suk Yeol said in his previous statement. At that time, he said that the reason why the military and police were deployed was for safety measures. Therefore, it can be seen as the same purpose, and how the facts are recognized is the most important part of this, so the National Assembly and the President of Yoon Suk Yeol will consider various ways to prove it. That's why I think this will be an issue on how to present it.

[Anchor]
And Moon Hyung-bae, acting head of the Constitutional Court, asked President Yoon directly, "Was there an order to bring down lawmakers?" Let's listen to it.

[Acting President of the Constitutional Court, Moon Hyung-bae: Have you ever instructed Lee Jin-woo, commander of the water defense command, and Kwak Jong-geun, commander of the Special Forces, to bring down lawmakers gathered in the National Assembly to resolve martial law after declaring martial law? ]

[President Yoon Suk Yeol] None. ]

[Anchor]
Therefore, it contradicts the remarks of the parties revealed through the National Assembly or investigation. What other intentions should President Yoon's remarks be considered?

[Kim Sung-soo]
This part also seems to be in line with whether it attempted to paralyze the function of the National Assembly. According to Article 77 (5) of the Constitution, when martial law is declared in this part, the National Assembly can demand that it be lifted with the approval of a majority of the registered lawmakers, and then it should be lifted immediately. The current National Assembly's argument on this part is that it was trying to arrest or block lawmakers to prevent the decision to lift the bill at the time, and the facts become an issue because President Yoon Suk Yeol has denied that there is any issue because he has clearly expressed his position in the court this time, so the issue is how the National Assembly will prove that there is one and how President Yoon Suk Yeol will prove that there is no one, and what the National Assembly is now holding as the basis is the National Assembly hearing and what these witnesses have stated. Since there is this data from the criminal case related to Ligo, I will claim that there was this fact based on these, and President Yoon Suk Yeol is now applying for several witnesses and applying for fact-finding, right? Through those parts, we will eventually try to prove that we deny this fact, so I think the Constitutional Court will listen to each argument and decide over time which statement or argument can be more reliable.

[Anchor]
President Yoon also denied the allegation that he ordered the arrest of politicians and legal professionals, saying, "I never ordered the arrest of then-Chairman Han Dong-hoon and National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik." How did you hear that?

[Kim Sung-soo]
If you tried to arrest a member of the National Assembly, this could be a kind of constitutional controversy, and in the case of former representative Han Dong-hoon, this could be a violation of the constitution, such as freedom of political activity. Therefore, it is necessary to accurately reveal the actual truth about this fact, and since I have denied it, I think how the National Assembly will prove this will be an issue.

[Anchor]
Yoon also said that he had no intention of executing decree No. 1, but it was intended to have a martial law format. Do you think it's convincing?

[Kim Sung-soo]
I think we need to look at this a little bit. It was stated that the issue of decree No. 1 itself prohibits the political activities of the National Assembly, as proclamation No. 1 said earlier, but now President Yoon Suk Yeol said that former Minister Kim Yong-hyun wrote this part referring to the decree in the past, and President Yoon Suk Yeol reviewed it, but at that time, there was a slight mistake in the legal judgment on this part. Additionally, according to Article 77 of the Constitution, when martial law was declared in this part, the president had to notify the National Assembly without delay when martial law was declared, and when an emergency martial law was declared, the president could take special measures against the government or the court as stipulated by law. However, there are areas where special measures cannot be taken against the National Assembly, the legislature. So, if you tried to do anything to the National Assembly about this, it could be a violation of the Constitution, so don't you know that we are arguing about it first, and decree No. 1 is clearly objective evidence right now? If so, the circumstances of this writing and such things can be controversial, so this part is bound to be a dispute, and I think the most important part is how to judge the facts.

[Anchor]
And one of the other parts covered in today's defense was the alleged election fraud. There was a mention of President Yoon.
Let's listen together.

[President Yoon Suk Yeol: Before declaring martial law, there were many questions about the fairness of these elections, and after inspecting a small portion of the NIS' computer equipment in October 2023, there were many problems. So try to screen the election system in general, not to search for fraudulent elections. It wasn't to raise a conspiracy theory that the election was all fraudulent and not to believe it because it was all fraudulent because it was about what equipment and what system it was operated by. It was to check the facts, not to raise the conspiracy theory.. ]

[Anchor]
Even before martial law, there have been questions about trust in electoral fairness. I'm not raising a conspiracy theory, but it was to confirm it, but don't you keep emphasizing the possibility of fraudulent elections?

[Kim Sung-soo]
That's right. You might wonder if fraudulent elections in the impeachment case could be an issue. This is the first of the five National Assembly prosecution decisions mentioned earlier. Isn't it the claim of the National Assembly that it violated martial law requirements and that it wasn't a national emergency? Regarding this, President Yoon Suk Yeol said, "If there is a fraudulent election or fraudulent election at the time, the foundation of representative democracy can be shaken. Therefore, they claim that it was an emergency of the state because of such a part and various impeachment situations, and in this regard, if there was a fraudulent election, there is a little more room for it to be recognized as a national emergency. And in order to prove the possibility of fraudulent elections on the part of President Yoon Suk Yeol, there were fact-finding and witness requests from those involved, so we need to wait and see what happens to this part.

[Anchor]
And you said that the important part of today's pleading date was the documentary evidence, but President Yoon presented the results of the security inspection announced by the National Intelligence Service and photos of the ballots as evidence. In particular, the issue was that it was a stiff shape that could not be seen as a ballot folded behind the sign, but the National Assembly and the NEC immediately protested. How should I look at this part?

[Kim Sung-soo]
First of all, the president of Yoon Suk Yeol is claiming that there are suspicions of fraudulent elections, and based on that, I will argue that there is a part where I have to review the suspicions because I have seen the data on these parts. That's why I think it's such a procedure to bring them as evidence. As the National Assembly and the NEC have repeatedly answered that there is no such thing, there seems to be a battle of truth in the end, and even if there is a situation in which the part of the election itself is not recognized, there was a suspicion that President Yoon Suk Yeol was claiming about the election fraud. And I think even this can be considered because the basis for that can be a convincing part of this.

[Anchor]
I see. That's all for today. I was with lawyer Kim Sung-soo. Thank you for today.