[Correct] President Yoon, who made a direct argument to the Constitutional Court...If I meet Kim Yonghyun tomorrow,

■ Host: Kim Sun-young Anchor
■ Starring: Kim Sang-il, current affairs critic, Choi Soo-young, current affairs critic

* 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]
A political commentary with a living angle, starting at the stroke of the hour. Today, there are two current affairs critics, Choi Soo-young and Kim Sang-il. President Yoon Suk Yeol, who had been turning a blind eye to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit investigation, appeared in the impeachment trial. Let's look at the related video first.

He will continue to appear in the Constitutional Court. The President of Yoon Suk Yeol has stated this position. We gathered yesterday's scenes on video, how did you see the attitude or response to the judges?

[Choi Soo-young]
The judges of the Constitutional Court appear to represent the Constitutional Court, but it is safe to say that the president actually talks with the people because this is a public place. As a result, the president's attendance at the Constitutional Court shows his direct suit, but he seems to have a strategy to use it as a place to talk to the people and to talk about the legitimacy of the December 3 martial law in reflecting the emergency presidential power.

Anyway, aren't you saying you're going to continue to appear in the Constitutional Court's arguments in the future? If so, the Constitutional Court will continue to argue directly about the legitimacy and justification of the act because it is a general examination of whether the degree of the president's actions is serious enough to dismiss the office and whether it is beneficial to the country, rather than evidence or the outcome of the investigation.

[Anchor]
I'll look into the contents later. On the outside, they bowled, and some responded that it was more humble depending on how President Yoon Suk Yeol speaks than usual.

[Kim Sang Il]
Isn't that too natural because it's in front of the court that decides your fate? If you show an arrogant attitude or try to show off your power, it will adversely affect the trial. So I think everyone shows that attitude except when it's really the last time in court, it's a dead end, there's no way. And if it was meant to be, there would be something like this. For example, I'll scratch the airlift.

The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is a place where investigations are conducted illegally, but I think it's not illegal, but I think I wanted to show that I'm a person who moves normally like this. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is also a legitimate place under court warrants. And the other one will be showing the support. I'm so confident in my supporters, so please keep supporting me. And please continue the protest. I think it's like this. This incendiary display continues to be so irresponsible and self-considered after the Western District Court's invasion. It's a pity that I thought of this, and I thought of this.

[Anchor]
Do you personally think that attendance itself has the meaning of inciting?

[Kim Sang Il]
That's what I think. Third, if you come out directly from there and deny it, the Constitutional Court will have to put a little more effort into verification. Then, since there is a high possibility that the Constitutional Court's proceedings will be delayed, I think they are choosing it as a strategy to delay the Constitutional Court.

[Anchor] We didn't have many options because we were in the
detention center.Many people also attached meaning to President Ma of Yoon Suk Yeol wearing a red tie.

[Choi Soo-young]
There's a word called dress code. There are two ways for politicians to communicate to the public: message and image. It's delivered through both messages and images, and it's almost the same that I wore a navy blue suit on the day of the engagement, a tie of similar color. I don't know if it's the same, but if you think it's similar to me, there's a dress code. Because I was in a detention center, I could interpret it as this, but martial law was an act of declaration within the president's authority, and then it was a state of emergency, which is a war or incident, but I decided that it was an emergency in state administration for the president to run the country.

And there will be a number of situations to come up with a consistent strategy of maintaining the same attire in the Constitutional Court hearing to argue this, bringing out the consistency of the message, the legitimacy, and the urgency of the president at the time.Ma is the first defense today, which is why the president's outfit is attracting attention like that, and the president seems to have a clear intention to deliver a consistent message.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is trying to meet while preparing for a forced recruitment, but President Yoon Suk Yeol is very much turning a blind eye, while he went to the Constitutional Court to actively defend himself. The judge asked me to look at the main contents of yesterday's defense. Did you order them to bring down lawmakers, isn't this the key question? He actively denied this.

[Kim Sang Il]
If you actively deny it, don't you need to check it again? So, as I said earlier, I think I'm trying to delay the Constitutional Court's process. Young soldiers went in there without instructions to pull them out and did such illegal activities? How can a soldier enter the National Assembly as he pleases? with a firearm Did you do it yourself? And then I went in, but do I go inside just to maintain order? I was trying to pull it out. The whole nation witnessed it through the screen. And at the end, it is said that he was gently withdrawn by Judge, but in my view, the intention to enter is also problematic. You have to see that.

And even the soldiers who went there had a sense of self-censorship of the law, whether it was right for us to go in like this toward our people with guns, and whether it would be illegal to go into the National Assembly like this. That's why I hesitated to see the resistance of the people, saying, "If we use our physical force against this resistance, we will be in big trouble." I don't think the president came out because he said, "Don't go in there." So what the president is saying seems to be a strategy to try to obscure the essence of what judgment he is trying to make to the people and to delay the Constitutional Court's trial.

[Anchor]
This is the first time President Yoon Suk Yeol has publicly answered the question of whether he has ever ordered it to be pulled out publicly. President Yoon's answer and the testimony of Hong Jang-won, former deputy director of the National Intelligence Service, Kwak Jong-geun, former commander of the National Police Agency, and Jo Ji-ho are so contradictory to the previous testimony.

[Choi Soo-young]
is correct. Major related workers have already said that they have received direct orders from President Yoon, and the minutes that testified at the National Assembly have been adopted as evidence and submitted to the Constitutional Court. However, he flatly denied it with four letters: "There is no president of Yoon Suk Yeol." Then is it the truth game aspect? Of course you can see that, but President Yoon Suk Yeol is saying that there was no direct order of evidence.

So the people who received it, the main related workers are the field commanders. In other words, they were ordered by former Minister Kim Yong-hyun, which can be said to be in the middle stage. However, the president seems to argue that this could be impeachment at a time when the key evidence is denied because it is not possible to look into the non-face-to-face phone because it is said that it was done under the direction of former Minister Kim Yong-hyun, or the president directly received the president's call. There's no evidence like a recording.

The facts need to be considered, but the important thing is that the Constitutional Court should deal with the additional and general position of whether it conforms to the legal spirit, and I think these parts will be dealt with in the trial track in terms of judicial proceedings. I don't think the Constitutional Court will scrutinize it very carefully, but both sides are placed. I think it's important how the justices of the Constitutional Court judge when there's no evidence. I think it's important to judge whether it's a kind of probability. Since the president says this consistently, we will have to wait and see how the judges of the Constitutional Court will judge in the future.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said this morning that the presidential office and the official residence are under search and seizure, and they are trying to secure a non-phone server there, but we need to see if that's direct evidence. Anyway, I think there could be such a strategy that President Yoon says he never ordered me to do so because there is no direct evidence and there is only a statement.

[Kim Sang Il]
That's right. I keep telling you, but in the end, I'm trying to drag it out a little longer. Don't people testify in their own situations before, for example, testimony is right? It is true that such testimony is the most accurate testimony. I personally believe that the testimony now comes out in line with the president's position through a statement or message because he feels some pressure on the president's status and tries to testify accordingly.

And most of all, what the president says is that it's very hard to accept the credibility, so commanders are the leaders of me? Doesn't it seem like you're passing the buck of the leader of a civil war on the commander of the military and the police? Then, what's the reason for them to play the role of the leader? Various circumstantial evidence, detailed statements, and these are actually preventing evidence from being secured, rather than not being secured. I think it's possible to do that because there are many parts where the evidence cannot be verified because of the power of the president and the power that can be prevented by the name of security.

[Anchor]
Yoon made a statement yesterday. Following the warrant review, it is this part that the Constitutional Court judge also raised as a key question. It's a question of whether you've ever given a note to an emergency legislative body. Let's see how President Yoon responded to this.

[Moon Hyung-bae / Acting President of the Constitutional Court: Have you ever given a note to the Minister of Strategy and Finance to draw up a budget for the emergency legislative body of the state? ]

[Yoon Suk Yeol / President] I never gave this to him, and I saw in the article that this note came out in the media a long time after lifting this martial law. The content of the article is a little inaccurate, and then the only person who can make this is the defense minister, but the defense minister was arrested at that time and could not confirm it in detail. However, if you look at the content, the content itself seems to contradict each other.]

[Choi Sang-mok / Acting President (last month 13th): To be exact, you gave me a folded paper, but I didn't know what it was about at the time and I put it in my pocket because I didn't know what it was about. ]

[Yoon Gap-geun / Yoon Suk Yeol's lawyer: What is an emergency legislative body? Don't you know? What is that? (Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun said he wrote it himself? There is no such thing as an emergency legislative body. (Is there an intention to rally supporters? ) I will not answer political questions. ]

[Anchor]
I've even heard the president's lawyer's position. So, President Yoon Suk Yeol said he never gave a note yesterday, but Acting President Choi Sang-mok said he received a folded note. What happened then?

[Choi Soo-young]
The words of acting Choi Sang-mok are compressed into two. I received what I received, but what I said in the second National Assembly Standing Committee response was that it was not accurate whether I received it from the president or from a working-level worker. I made that clear. Then, when I saw the National Assembly today, it was also mentioned in the parliamentary investigation, and only Minister Cho Tae-yeol said he remembered the existence of the note and the rest did not remember the existence of the note. And I said yesterday that there was a point where the president's remarks on the Constitutional Court contradicted each other in a significant and interesting way.

What this is is that there is no right to dissolve the National Assembly in the current martial law declaration right. How do you create an alternative legislative body when you don't have the power to dissolve parliament? So, if you have the right to dissolve, it is logically established to create a legislative body to replace it. Because it neutralized it, so it created another legislative body to act on its behalf. But how can I do it if I don't have the right to dissolve? So, is the president's warring logically correct?

So now, the subject of this writing is almost Kim Yong-hyun, former minister, and isn't that statement almost inconsistent? The president said at first that he didn't remember, but he couldn't confirm it because the minister was arrested, so I think he's right. If so, the issue of decree is the same for me as for the legislative body, but former Minister Kim Yong-hyun may have written so long because he knew the president's intention, not the president's instructions. Speaking of

, as I said, I may have arbitrarily judged various things in the role of an intermediate conductor. The president intends to cover this part in the Constitutional Court hearing. Even if the executives accepted it that way, I have never ordered it as the final leader and have never given a note, so this seems to be a clear statement that there was no intention because the Constitutional Court deals with this aspect as a whole, as I said in the Constitutional Court.

[Anchor]
I think it's a kind of puzzle, so I received a folded note from Acting President Choi Sang-mok, but it's not clear if it was given by President Yoon.

[Choi Soo-young]
Having made such a remark, I think acting Choi will also likely be adopted as a witness to the Constitutional Court. This is because the only person who can finally confirm is acting Choi in the Constitutional Court. At that time, it will be concentrated into two remarks, but anyway, the issue that is going on seems to go to a kind of truth game.

[Anchor]
It is a very important matter for the judge to ask, but Minister Cho Tae-yeol responded like this, as you said in today's parliamentary investigation on the note. Let's hear what the answer is.

[Baek Hye-ryeon / Minjoo Party of Korea Special Committee on National Policy: Anyway, did you receive a note directly from the president? ]

[Jo Tae-yeol / Minister of Foreign Affairs: That's right. That's what I answered at the plenary session. ]

[Baek Hye-ryeon / Member of the Minjoo Party of Korea Special Committee on National Policy: I hope that the Minister will continue to make clear his position. Looking at it now, you said that about five members of the State Council came at that time, but isn't it a situation you can see exactly when the president gives a note to the minister? The members of the State Council who were with us? ]

[Jo Tae-yeol / Minister of Foreign Affairs: I think there are a lot of people who haven't seen it or don't remember it because I handed it over as soon as I sat down. ]

[Baek Hye-ryeon / Minjoo Party of Korea Special Committee on National Policy: Let me ask Prime Minister Han Deok-soo once again. Did you see it? Didn't you see it? ]

[Han Deok-soo / Prime Minister: I've said this many times, the situation is very shocking as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, so the whole thing is very difficult to remember]

[Anchor]
At this point, I don't know if there is one or two notes, and I'm confused whether the note that Minister Cho Tae-yeol is talking about is the right one. How should I understand it?

[Kim Sang Il]
I think the note that Minister Cho Tae-yeol received will be another one related to foreign affairs and security. I think that's a possibility. It doesn't matter who gave the note received by acting authority Choi Sang-mok. It's important who made the decision about it and who made the decision about the content. What former Minister Kim Yong-hyun clearly said was that the lawyer said. Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun wrote it, made a suggestion to the president, and I know that it was handed over by the president. Then it doesn't matter whether you handed it over or not.

For example, I've played a lot of roles as an assistant, but isn't it impossible for someone who acts as an assistant to make a separate note and give it to me even though he didn't ask me to give it to him? I don't think that's possible for anyone who's done that at least a little bit, and I think nearly 1,000 people would say that. That's why the phrase "Have you ever given it or not" is about trying to blur the essence of the current situation, and I haven't given it myself, but it's my decision. And it's like the president and the person in charge who answers that I was aware of.

[Anchor]
If you give it directly, it becomes more reliable evidence, so isn't this important?

[Kim Sang Il]
That may be true, but nevertheless, answering with a strategy to confuse and avoid the answer is not a responsible appearance for me as a president. I think it's too selfish why you don't think that the responsibility can be passed on to someone else in that case.

[Anchor]
In any case, President Yoon Suk Yeol responded to the note by saying, "I don't know what to do when reviewing the warrant," but this time, the answer was changed, saying, "Only former Minister Kim Yong-hyun can use the note." Is this an advanced answer? Or did you change your strategy?

[Choi Soo-young]
You should say that you thought a little more about this. The judge asked just one question during the warrant review, and if that's right, the president also told you. I'm sure you've decided it's important. The important point here is that President Yoon, who could have not taken the issue so seriously, but ordered it as if many ministers say the situation was confusing at the time, would also be very confusing.

Who exactly instructed at the time. If you look at various media reports now, the statement is consistent that the president was extremely excited. If so, he thinks it may be difficult to reconstruct the memory of whether the president did it to former Minister Kim or whether he received it, and in that respect, he told the Constitutional Court to draw down a note from the legislative body and a lawmaker, and then why troops went to the National Assembly and the NEC. Who wrote the decree No. 1? These four are the key issues.

In the end, the case itself will be treated as a trial in the criminal track, but the Constitutional Court, which decides the president's dismissal, will see whether it conforms to the spirit of the Constitution or whether it can serve as the basis for the president's judgment on what he saw as an incident. Since these things are considered comprehensively, the most important thing about this part in the future was yesterday's first position in principle. How long will we keep it and continue to lead it?

[Anchor]
As the possibility of President Yoon Suk Yeol and former Minister Kim Yong-hyun meeting at the Constitutional Court tomorrow is being discussed, there are expectations that there will be a battle of truth between the two not only about this note but also about the decree.

[Kim Sang Il]
I don't know if the truth battle will come and go or change the statement. However, looking at former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's attitude, there is also concern that his position may shift toward changing his position and trying to show loyalty to the president. This is because former Minister Kim Yong-hyun was actively involved in the investigation and made a statement after being arrested at first. However, since the president's first statement came out, he has turned very defensive. So I talked about it on the show.

What the President has done is intended to deliver a message and align everyone's statements with it. That is the intention of destroying evidence. I talked about it. Even now, the president seems to have decided on a strategy to show off his strength, thinking he is still powerful with the support of his fierce supporters. The more the people do, the more reaction will take place. As you can see from the history of the Democratic Party and the ruling party, I hope you think that the people have a more critical view when they are overly confident in their power and arrogant.

[Anchor]
Anyway, some analysts say that each one of us is looking for a way to live. Rep. Park Beom-gye of the Democratic Party of Korea made this prediction about former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's stance. Let's listen to it.

[Park Beom-gye / Rep. Kim Tae-hyun of the Democratic Party of Korea (SBS's political show): (The president can handle it and I can go head-to-head), is this how we judge right now? ) No. Former Minister Kim Yong-hyun is the first to come out and question witnesses among those who were first adopted as witnesses tomorrow. I'm going to make a statement on the side of the president that generally advocates for the president and advocates for the legitimacy of martial law. However, regarding this decree, it is different from the president's statement now. But this is how the two of them got together. I don't look at it like this. The decree is an obvious fact, and if you say that the decree was entirely done by Kim Yong-hyun, as President Yoon said, the water monster changes. The water monster changes. The president becomes an important mission worker, and former Minister Kim Yong-hyun becomes a water beast, so he makes a false statement that doesn't fit common sense, that is, A, so this can't all be acknowledged. Because there are circumstances, situations, rules of experience, and rules of logic, it is said that if you lie with CCTV, you will be caught immediately. ]

[Anchor]
First of all, former Minister Kim Yong-hyun will try to protect President Yoon rather than a responsible battle. However, it seems to be an analysis that the water mass cannot be changed.

[Choi Soo-young]
It's true that the president is already above the Secretary of Defense. Even if the relationship between the two is a high school senior and junior relationship, wouldn't the president and the defense secretary be in the chain of command? In that respect, decree No. 1 is an important issue, but did the president inadvertently overlook the draft or did the president take the lead in approving what former minister Kim wrote? It's mixed on this, but it's undeniable that the proclamation was eventually approved by the president and printed.

Because the president cannot be free from the decree unless he makes a false report or breaks the seal in a roundabout way. However, the important thing here is that the content of the decree is important, but if you look at each one inside, you will also look at the unconstitutional illegality there.

However, in the end, the Constitutional Court looks into the probability rather than the ability to prove in detail, so even if former Minister Kim Yong-hyun says that he wrote this on his own initiative and only the president's correction confirmation, it does not mean that the president's responsibility disappears anyway, so I didn't know this clause. Rather than doing this, it may be logical and reasonable to persuade the Constitutional Court judges why I judged it as a national crisis, so I think it would be strategically right to focus on that part in the future.

[Anchor]
Let me ask you this question briefly as well. Many analysts say that President Yoon Suk Yeol has lowered his tone considerably compared to the previous one in connection with the suspicion of the NEC. So, I used this expression that it's a fact check rather than an allegation of a fraudulent election. What kind of strategy do you think this is?

[Choi Soo-young]
At that time, the military force was included, but nothing was done except for filming the server, and there was no data that was taken out by the NEC. In other words, it was not a powerful and active entry. Then, the so-called suspicion of fraudulent elections that the president has talked about so far, and then this is not the suspicion of fraudulent elections, but the problem of the system for poor election management, to confirm this. But anyway, you can directly investigate the NEC, but there is no state agency. Because it's a constitutional institution. So, I think the Constitutional Court first went to Rocky, but the important thing is that the president disclosed his last letter.

Here are three important things. There are allegations of fake voting sites. Then there are traces of the total fraudulent election system working. Then there is too much evidence of rigged elections. That's what I said. That's why we talked about it in general yesterday, but the Constitutional Court's hearing, which can prove these cases in the future, continues. If I make a follow-up to prove these in that situation, the atmosphere and the decision of the trial can be different, so I think the key will be how much the president can present yesterday's general discussion, the rest of the evidence, and the data.

[Anchor]
I will continue to raise the issue, I think this will be treated as one of the key parts. Many analysts say that President Yoon Suk Yeol's continued appearance in the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial is aimed at gathering supporters. Regarding the recent decline in the Democratic Party's approval rating in common in various opinion polls, the media reported that Chairman Lee Jae-myung should also find out why. I heard there was a story like this, too.

[Kim Sang Il]
So they looked into it and saw it. However, the contents of the report seem to have been a little considerate of the mood of representative Lee Jae-myung. Because it became a task sampling. It is said that the voices of the far-right have become a bit oversampling, focusing on these things. I don't think such a report is a very helpful part.

[Anchor]
Isn't the task sampling something that you've been raising as the cause?

[Kim Sang Il]
I'm also thinking that it's some of the causes. This is because, in fact, if you look at the number of samples, it appears that the number of samples of remuneration has increased by about 100 samples from the previous ones. Then 100 samples is not a small number. If you say 1,000 people, 100 people is 10% of the total, but since it's not a small amount, there will be some.Rather than that, the overall trend is formed in such a way, the way the Democratic Party has shown so far has not been complete to the people, it feels a little excessive. That's why I told you earlier.

If the president and the ruling party jump on it and act excessively, the trend will change again, I think. This is what the Democrats did wrong. Since there is a separation of powers, if there is such an illegal thing, the frame should have been set in the structure of illegal vs. the rule of law.

And if there is anything loose in the rule of law, it should have stayed at the level of checking and criticizing it, but it seemed to provide very specific guidelines such as asking for arrest or what to do. That part is being critically revealed, I think like this, but the president uses it as an opportunity to show the same appearance? With past approval ratings, I think I'll be back.

[Anchor]
There is also a view that Lee Jae-myung will hold a New Year's press conference tomorrow and has recently started his presidential campaign by strengthening his public livelihood. At the meeting this morning, CEO Lee Jae-myung said this. Let's hear from CEO Lee Jae-myung for a while.

[Lee Jae-myung / Democratic Party leader: The slogan on the wall of the presidential office in Yoon Suk Yeol is 'Republic of Korea again', and there was a controversy over whether we could use it. Even though I knew it, I asked him to use it. It doesn't matter if it's a white cat, a black cat, or a gray cat. And what's wrong with the words? The problem is that you don't talk and act. I think the most unjust person in our modern history is Chun Doo-hwan. He killed countless people for his own self-interest. They destroyed democracy in our country through military coups. In the meantime, what this person wrote was the realization of a justice society. I used the word justice in the most negative way. What our society really needs now is not futile. It's not a futile ideology. It's not Jinyoung. Now, we need to completely switch to post-ideology and post- camp pragmatism. ]

[Anchor]
There was even talk about black and white graves, but now you're going to catch the middle class, is this a strategy like this?

[Choi Soo-young]
After listening to CEO Lee Jae-myung all along, I think CEO Lee Jae-myung is the only one who doesn't know. CEO Lee Jae-myung's real crisis is not a judicial risk. This is a trust risk. What's important for the people now is that they don't believe anything representative Lee Jae-myung says. What's the point of quality of messages when messengers are in crisis? I think CEO Lee Jae-myung is completely wrong now, but he talks about black and white votes, but can the person who can execute it give public consent?

In short, is Yoon Suk Yeol's martial law and impeachment the responsibility of President Yoon Suk Yeol alone for three years? No, isn't CEO Lee Jae-myung responsible for leading the breakdown of state affairs with President Yoon Suk Yeol? The people are asking that now. However, I am very concerned about the black tomb bleachers, the Republic of Korea running again, and this misleading perception of the situation.

[Anchor]
Finally, briefly. It seems that the voice is coming out little by little from the screaming world. Is it okay for the Democratic Party to only look at Lee Jae-myung, do you think there is a possibility that such voices will spread in the future?

[Kim Sang Il]
But for that to happen, there should have been a leader who is sacrificed and sacrificed by continuously speaking out like that. However, I think it is questionable how much ripple effect it will have in terms of saying that if a person who showed cowardice to avoid being victimized said that the opportunity came, the people would see it as opportunism and not as a great conviction and courage to applaud. So this is a matter of authenticity.

That's why CEO Lee Jae-myung was like that a little while ago. I think Lee Jae-myung's move toward the middle has already begun for a considerable period of time. But why it doesn't get recognized is sincerity. If the representative makes such a move, his aides must receive the message and show the same image to feel that it is the representative's sincerity. Now, from the people's point of view, the appearance of their aides is not at all. That's why I think there's a part that can be read by the public as a role play in a way.

[Anchor]
I think the trend of the poll will be a variable whether the voice of the screaming world will grow. It was Choi Soo-young and Kim Sang-il. Thank you.