President Yoon finally refused to comply with the Christmas investigation...Suspicion of Roh Sang-won's private organization 'Investigation 2nd Stage'

■ Host: Anchor Park Seok-won, Anchor Yoon Bori
■ Starring: Lawyer Sohn Soo-ho

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN Newswide] when quoting.

[Anchor]
The president of Yoon Suk Yeol has refused to comply with the request for a second summons from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. The president also said that an impeachment trial should be conducted prior to the investigation.

We point out major legal issues related to the civil war investigation and the impeachment trial. Lawyer Sohn So-ho is with us. How are you?


Yoon's refusal to subpoena the second round of the Presidential Corruption Investigations Unit, should this be viewed as a defense strategy? Should I say it's a defense measure?

[Sonho]
First of all, even though it's a holiday, the investigative agency seems to be suffering a lot. We look forward to a thorough, rapid and accurate investigation and will wait and see. First of all, the level of defense or defense strategy that the host said just a moment ago. I agree with you. I think we should look at President Yoon's current status or status separately. First of all, he is the suspect of a rebellion charge. In other words, it's the subject of investigation. I'm also facing criminal charges. So the ultimate goal would be to go unpunished. Therefore, it will be necessary to secure a considerable amount of time for this. There will also be an aspect where we expect more and more advocacy public opinion to continue to rally.

Also, since you are an incumbent president, you can make the most of your authority or position. Because in general cases, when an investigative agency asks you to attend, you have to take a very big risk of continuing to refuse, which is what the president is doing now, and he is still not arrested or arrested. But actually, there seems to be something more important than that aspect. It's the president. Since he is an incumbent president, he is stipulated in the Constitution as the head of the state, and he even swore that he would abide by the Constitution when he took office.

In such a situation, I think that continuing to fail to comply with the investigation process may eventually gain some benefits in a short period of time, but in a long period of time, it may be more disadvantageous. And now the exercise of authority is suspended. There is an acting authority right now. In this situation, it can be seen as a national emergency, and I think the president himself is obligated to quickly end and normalize this confusion. I think we are making a bad choice legally, politically, and in terms of public sentiment because we continue to put this solution behind us.

[Anchor]
At the same time, he mentioned the case of former President Park Geun Hye, saying that President Yoon's argument is that the impeachment trial should be conducted first before the investigation. Can I put it on the same line?

[Sonho]
I don't think so. Of course, it's the same in terms of the formality that the impeachment vote against the president is made or the Constitutional Court decides whether to dismiss him or not. The Constitutional Court has to make a judgment. This is the third time in constitutional history. However, the reason for the investigation and the current situation are very different. In other words, in the case of former President Park Geun Hye, although he was subsequently convicted.The charges that Ma received at the time included third-party bribery and other reasons that were not prosecuted while he was in office under the Constitution. However, in the case of President Yoon Suk Yeol, of course, the trial has not yet proceeded or the decision of the Constitutional Court has not been made, but the charges currently being charged are treason.

It's not subject to the fluoridation privilege even though it's in office. Therefore, the argument that impeachment proceedings should take place first because the investigation can proceed as much as possible, and why you make that argument is understandable.It's not easy to agree if you ask if Ma is a legally correct claim. There is one more important thing. It's the subject of investigation. President Yoon Suk Yeol is now a suspect. However, does the subject of the investigation have the right to decide the timing, procedure, and method of the investigation and make a request? Of course, you can ask for cooperation and the process can proceed smoothly.I don't think there are many legal professionals who can agree purely legally on the argument that the investigation is next, excluding political background or judgment, because the impeachment process must be judged first.

[Anchor]
There were many opinions about President Yoon's refusal to comply with the second summons of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and how the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit would respond next, but this was whether to request a third attendance or an arrest warrant. I think the weight of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is down due to the third request for attendance. How do you think you'll accept it in the future?

[Sonho]
The head of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit said he was looking forward to the president's attendance at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit And we will wait a little longer for the question of whether we will seek an arrest warrant right away. I said that the policy has not been set, and it is tomorrow, and I said that I will decide on the 26th. It seems that the current requirements for arrest under warrant have already been met. Because if you look at the regulations, arrest and arrest are completely different. In other words, if you want to ask the suspect to appear and do not comply with it, if you do not respond without a justifiable reason, or if there is a possibility of not responding, you receive a warrant from a court judge and bring it. It means that I will investigate by bringing him in and asking questions and listening to the answers.

And there are many cases where an arrest warrant is issued like this, they are brought in, asked questions, and then released. And after that, the request, issuance, and execution of arrest warrants is another matter. Therefore, I would like to tell you first that there are cases where arrest and arrest are linked together, but there are cases where they are not. And it appears that they have already met the requirements for arrest under warrant.Since Ma is the president, the cause seems to be very important from the perspective of the investigative agency.

In other words, from a different angle, why is it different from a normal event? Why do you give more convenience to the suspect than in the case of a general case, why do you do it more carefully? There is also a point in the question of why you give me so much time. However, in reality, I think there is a need for investigative agencies to go through the process more firmly in order not to make the suspect more confused in terms of the incumbent president. That's why we need a very quick investigation and a quick investigation.It seems that the investigative agency is also thinking a lot about the procedure to minimize national confusion.

[Anchor]
In the midst of this, the formation of President Yoon's lawyers continues to be delayed. Lawyer Seok Dong-hyun said yesterday that it is not a job shortage, but I wonder why it is so late.

[Sonho]
I think that the phrase "not a job shortage" is an expression of a job shortage. In general cases, it is advantageous to quickly select a lawyer for assistance. So it's advantageous to decide whether to admit it or to hold out until the end, and then to quickly decide how much to admit and where to deny it, and respond accordingly. But right now, this case is very unique, because the charge you're facing is civil war.

If so, the moment a part of it is admitted, it will be difficult for the president to remain in office anymore, and it is very likely that it will lead to very severe criminal punishment. In the end, whether you want it or not, and whether the lawyer wants it or not, it seems that you have to deny the various charges and hold on until the end. As a result, it seems difficult to find a lawyer and share the roles of lawyers and organize various things. But from a lawyer's point of view, what kind of case are you taking on? Once you think about it, if you are close or have a very deep relationship, you can take over again. There's a good chance you'll take over.

Second, if there is a large monetary compensation, it is more likely that he will also take over. Or, if your reputation or reputation increases by taking charge of the case, or if it helps you with your dream future career, this can also be close to taking over. However, this may be a personal standard of mandate, but I think the possibility of winning is the most important thing even if all of the things I mentioned earlier are satisfied. In particular, if this case goes to a criminal trial, wouldn't it be a crime of rebellion? However, if you can't get your client, you'll be punished for rebellion and you'll be a lawyer who will be punished for rebellion, so the possibility of winning this case seems important.

However, so far, it is very difficult to appear on the show and analyze or predict certain events. Because I haven't seen the evidence in person, the reason I can't say definitively. But this case is a little different now. In other words, it is possible to guess what the investigative agency is currently thinking. Also, if they are prosecuted, they can understand to some extent what will be submitted as evidence at the trial. Because everything that happened at that time remains as evidence. Therefore, can this case be prevented really well? Can he be found not guilty of rebellion? I personally think that it will not be easy to form a defense team because there are many concerns about this part.

[Anchor]
Didn't the Constitutional Court consider the case of President Yoon because he didn't receive the impeachment trial documents from the Constitutional Court? After that, there are documents that need to be submitted by the 27th as well as tomorrow, but I haven't. Can we proceed with the Constitutional Court's schedule according to the Constitutional Court's timetable in a situation where one of these parts does not cooperate?

[Sonho]
I think it's possible to proceed. And the Constitutional Court is also announcing its plan to proceed that way so far. Therefore, even if the President of Yoon Suk Yeol does not submit an answer or cooperate with or respond to the procedure, the Constitutional Court is willing to proceed. But he expressed his will in a big way.If Ma gives the impression that he is proceeding with each specific procedure quickly, the final conclusion of the Constitutional Court may have some doubts or disappointments, so the Constitutional Court seems to be thinking deeply about the current process. And tomorrow. The judges will hold a meeting at the Constitutional Court tomorrow. Perhaps the main agenda or content of such a meeting tomorrow is also related to the hearing on the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol.

[Anchor]
This time, let's look at the rebellion investigation. Yesterday, the National Assembly released a CCTV. Immediately after the declaration of martial law, martial law troops were also deployed to the National Assembly Speaker's official residence. Regarding this, the National Assembly Secretariat is asking for an explanation, such as whether they were trying to arrest the speaker of the National Assembly or prepare for a second martial law. How do you see it?

[Sonho]
If you keep watching the news, new stories keep coming out and unimaginable things keep popping up, so I'm experiencing heart-wrenching experiences. It's coming out on the screen.This martial law is a very dangerous and very special situation because the military, which has to protect the people from the outside, is likely to exercise tangible power from the people. However, these martial law forces stayed around the parliamentary speaker's official residence. I have no choice but to doubt that I planned something worse in this part.

However, there is an explanation for this. In other words, it's an explanation from the Ministry of National Defense. I said I went to the scene because the presidential security service requested it. But there's another refutation. The National Assembly speaker's office said they never asked for security. Then, the National Assembly speaker's office has never asked for security from the presidential security agency, so why did the presidential security agency make such a request to the Ministry of National Defense? I think we need to reveal this part. Of course, it cannot be concluded that the current situation itself should punish all specific criminal acts and soldiers who have committed such acts. However, the National Assembly has started to conduct a parliamentary investigation. It seems to be an issue that needs to be fully investigated through a parliamentary investigation.

[Anchor]
One of the most controversial things over the past week is former commander Roh Sang-won's notebook, which describes politicians and journalists as being subject to collection and death. What needs to be backed up a little more for these to lead to circumstantial evidence?

[Sonho]
It's actually coming out through media reports to see what kind of contents this notebook is.Ma may not be as important as you think, or in some cases, it may be a very important material. It seems that all possibilities are open. Because in order for the contents of this notebook to be evidence of conviction in future trials, the ability to prove evidence must first be recognized. If so, we need to find out whether there was any illegality in the process and the process of obtaining this notebook. Second, you have to look at what the contents are written. In other words, former Chief Ahn Jong-beom's notebook became very important evidence in the case of former President Park Geun Hye in the past. However, the Supreme Court judged the admissibility of evidence in this way for the notebook. I split it up and looked at it.

I took notes of the part ordered by the president at the time of Park Geun Hye and the part where former president Park Geun Hye met and talked with the head of the company. Since there is a professional law in our law and the ability to testify is strictly judged, it is necessary to wait and see how the court will judge the contents of this notebook in the future. Another important thing is that even if the admissibility of evidence is recognized, it must have proof and evidence. Therefore, even if some of the words are very stimulating and there are very scary words in the content itself, what is the context and why did you write them down? Legal judgment can vary greatly depending on whether you wrote your thoughts, whether you wrote your discussion with someone, or whether you wrote your instructions from someone. Therefore, I think it would be good to see it as a notebook that has all possibilities open at the moment.

[Anchor]
One of the other controversial things in this notebook is the phrase that induces North Korea's attacks in the NLL. There is a saying that not only charges of rebellion over this, but also foreign exchange charges can be applied, so can you explain it?

[Sonho]
Our criminal law lists all kinds of crimes. Among them, the first thing that comes out is civil war, and the second thing that comes out is foreign exchange. And in the case of civil war and foreign exchange, the president's privilege to remove fluoride is not even available in the Constitution. It is a very important crime and leads to severe punishment, but there are many foreign exchange crimes. In detail, this includes foreign exchange attraction, female enemy, general crimes, espionage, etc. But I think it's a general crime to take issue now. Because there is a problem that North Korea should be viewed as an enemy in the case of foreign exchange attraction or female enemy.

However, this was acknowledged in the previous Supreme Court case. And secondly, there's a requirement that you're fighting. Therefore, what is currently a problem is the general crime. However, if you look at this component of the general transfer crime, it is a crime that is established when it harms the military interests of the Republic of Korea or provides military interests to the enemy. Therefore, there is a possibility that it will be established.There are still a lot of suspicious things coming out.I actually don't know how long the investigation has gone that far.

Therefore, so far, the investigative agency has worked hard to uncover the truth, and it seems that these are mainly related to civil war. However, in the process, if the same act is both a civil war and a foreign exchange, it can be punished enough, and there is a possibility that drones and other things that raise concerns of the public will be recognized as foreign exchange crimes.

[Anchor]
At the time of martial law, was there no circumstantial evidence that former commander Roh tried to set up a separate investigation team after the declaration of martial law? What charges can you bring against setting up an investigation team including soldiers when you are a civilian, but the general is a brigade commander and part of the brigadier general is included, and you are a civilian?

[Sonho]
I think this part is really shocking. If this is really true, it's a very important part. And the investigation needs to be conducted more and more concrete.E may all make up a part of the crime of rebellion. In addition, according to the Supreme Court's ruling at the time of Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, all actions from beginning to end are not punished for rebellion. Since there is a precedent that only a part of it can be punished for rebellion, it can be a prediction of the future if we accurately find out when, where, and what kind of behavior the people involved have done with.Ma thinks that if the crime of rebellion against President Yoon Suk Yeol is found guilty, the range of people who will be punished together could be very broad.

[Anchor]
Finally, let's talk a little more about the National Assembly. There are even talks about the impeachment of the acting president. If the impeachment is filed, the battle continues over this standard. The Democratic Party argues that the standard of impeachment of members of the State Council should be applied, but the People's Power also says that this is a violation of the Constitution. What happens legally?

[Sonho]
In this part, there seems to be a lot of different opinions in the case of a politician and a legal person who was a politician, or a legal person who will be a politician. But I fully understand that part. It's also controversial because it's a statement that makes sense. However, in my view, I am currently the Prime Minister, even though I am an acting president. I didn't become president. That's why I think it would be right to apply the requirements for impeachment against the prime minister, even though he is an acting president. However, if you do that, you can have another problem.

In other words, the various exercises of power as acting president can be grounds for impeachment, and politically, the other side can claim those parts as grounds for impeachment. In that case, I think it is appropriate to apply specific rationality to apply the requirements for the president. According to media reports so far, many of the reasons for impeachment of Prime Minister Han Deok-soo by the Democratic Party of Korea have been made as prime minister, but some have also been made as acting president. If you want to remove and exclude some controversy, I think it would be safer to divide that part and use only the part you did as prime minister as the reason for impeachment.

[Anchor]
Lastly, as a member of the State Council, he said that the impeachment should be viewed as the prime minister, but the ruling and opposition parties have different views on the appointment of constitutional judges. How do you see this? Do you think it's possible to make an appointment?

[Sonho]
How far can acting Han Deok-soo work now? There is a lot of controversy over how far we should go and where we should go first. But that part that the host said a while ago seems to be the least controversial part. In other words, even if you look at the constitutional provisions, of course, the president will act as an acting president on this matter. It says I'm appointing you. But it was elected by the National Assembly. The Constitution says it's an election. Then, given the purpose of the Constitution, I think that the appointment of the president or acting president may be more of a duty and a duty than a choice or right.

It's an extreme case.Ma needs the acting president to appoint someone new if many of the Constitutional Court justices resign that they will no longer be here and the impeachment proceedings cannot proceed. In that case, the Constitutional Court justices will leave, preventing the impeachment proceedings from proceeding. If so, you will go all the way to the end as acting president. It's a very contradictory situation and it's not convincing constitutionally. In view of this, although he is an acting president, the appointment of a constitutional judge to the National Assembly should be done, and if he does not, the acting president should also be responsible for the confusion.

[Anchor]
I see. Let's stop here. So far, I've been with lawyer Sohn So-ho. Thank you.