[Scene video +] Jeong Cheong-rae said, "Civil war monster, death penalty is possible...subject to emergency arrest"

[Anchor]
The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee will hold a general meeting to ask pending questions about the emergency martial law situation and investigation.

Questions about the trial of the Constitutional Court for the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol are also expected.

Let's go straight to the scene.

[Joo Jinwoo]
Are all the Democrats who were not at the scene accomplices? And at that time, the agenda was clearly discussed with the Speaker of the National Assembly. According to that logic, are all the Democratic Party members who are sympathizing with and supporting the contents of sending 8 million dollars to North Korea accomplices? In this way, I am very sorry for raising reckless suspicions at a time when the state administration should be prevented and stabilized. I hope you can say that again in a place without immunity.

In addition, the members of the State Council said that the Yoon Suk Yeol presidential impeachment bill did not hold a cabinet meeting properly, and they threatened to apologize to the members of the State Council as a group and prosecute the impeachment. However, the current members of the State Council are those who have to work all day and night to stabilize our country. But how can we stabilize state administration while insulting the members of the State Council without any basis? In the eyes of the people, I think we should take sincere measures. The Constitutional Court decided yesterday that six constitutional judges could have a hearing, but did the judges' meeting conclude this?

[Interview]
in accordance with the provisional injunction decision not too long ago

[Joo Jinwoo]
What's the decision maker? Who made the decision? Did the acting head of the Constitutional Court decide this time that these six people are possible? Or was it decided by the judges' meeting?

[Interview]
It was decided by six people's provisional injunction.

[Joo Jinwoo]
I think this is very problematic. Because Article 23 (1) of this Constitution explicitly stipulates that the hearing is conducted by the attendance of seven constitutional judges. The reason for this is that the Constitutional Court has the function of resolving this political conflict, so it consists of separation of powers. Three presidents, three Supreme Court justices and three National Assembly members. In that case, seven people should be the main body of separation of powers.

For example, for judges who recommended only three presidents, three chief justice of the Supreme Court, there were more than seven hearings because the spirit of separation of powers could not be embodied in the trial. However, the president of the Korea Communications Commission, Lee Jin-sook, was impeached, so he filed a constitutional petition and applied for a provisional injunction to suspend the effect of this article. I'm well aware of that. However, the issue is different. First of all, Chairman Lee Jin-sook filed a constitutional petition and requested that the clause be suspended.

Because in my opinion, he thought it was more disadvantageous for him to delay the trial than the right of several or nine people to be tried in this trial. Therefore, Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, is the person who requested that the effect be suspended. And if you look at the decision, it's not a universal decision. The effect will be suspended until an impeachment or a constitutional appeal is made against Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Standards Commission. The Constitutional Court has never ruled the clause unconstitutional, and has never made it as a whole. Then, for example, Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, has been on trial since September 3rd, and has held almost several trials. The Constitutional Court is now saying that it will impeach the president first, but what happens if the decision on Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, is made first? The effect of the clause is to be revived.

And now, the president's argument should be judged through trial, but he is pointing out the problem of the opposition's abuse of impeachment, especially the abuse of impeachment against Chairman Lee Jin-sook in one day. Then, since this judgment is related to this judgment, there is room for a judgment on Chairman Lee Jin-sook first. However, the provision requested by Chairman Lee Jin-sook generally interpreted the suspension of the case, and the president has not held a trial now, but of course, it is not acceptable to say that it has an effect on the impeachment of the president.

In particular, even when the regulation that seven people would hear about Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, was suspended, all nine people decided at that time. There are only six judges now, aren't there? And for the other three, we have to fill in the composition. In such a situation, we hurriedly opened the hearing preparation period first. If so, how can you convince and accept the people when this result comes out? Because the president is a person who was elected with a guarantee of democratic legitimacy and direct democratic legitimacy, if it's not just a majority vote that's going to blow the president's office. This means that two-thirds of the impeachment and two-thirds of the Constitutional Court should be careful so that more than two-thirds of the people who oppose the impeachment can accept the decision.

But six people judge that six people can plead in the hearing itself? I think there's a problem with this itself. If we ask Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, to decide on the impeachment first, what will the effect be? First-in-first-out is the principle, but regarding Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Standards Commission, are you not making a decision and proceeding unconditionally without hearing the opinion of the president's lawyer? I think this is a significant legal issue, what do you think?

[Kim Jungwon]
The Constitutional Court decided on provisional injunction against Article 23 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act. It's all...

[Joo Jinwoo]
How long will it be effective? It doesn't have to be studied, does it? Only Chairman Lee Jin-sook is suspended until the trial of the case is sentenced.

[Kim Jungwon]
If you look at the decision, it is all stated, but there is an unconstitutional trial for Article 23, Paragraph 1. Therefore, the Constitutional Court suspended the effect as a provisional disposition for the unconstitutional trial under Article 23 (1). And our court judges that the disposition of suspension of effect applies not only to Lee Jin-sook's impeachment trial, but also to all cases.

[Chairman]
Please organize it.

[Kim Jungwon]
I will tell you that the court is considering all of that.

[Chairman]
You know the Constitutional Court. You cited the decision made during the impeachment of Lee Jin-sook last time that it's okay for six people to do it, right? That's what it is, right?

[Kim Jungwon]
The effect of Article 23, Paragraph 1 is currently suspended.

[Chairman]
I see. So in conclusion, isn't it that six people start hearing?

[Kim Jungwon]
The court judges that there is no legal problem with the six people starting the hearing.

[Chairman]
I see. Rep. Park Eun-jung, ask questions.

[Park Eun-jung]
Dear Senator Park Kyun-taek, thank you for changing the order. It came out briefly in a question with the head of the correctional center earlier, so I'll ask you to submit the data. On the day of the civil war on December 3, there was an expanded meeting of prison guards across the country, and I also received a report that it was a meeting about emptying all the prison rooms in the detention center, that they would be arrested. So, I ask the Ministry of Justice to submit data. On the same day, martial law is related, so if it's the same day, it's included until midnight on December 4th. We request all materials that have made plans related to martial law and held a response meeting. If the correctional authorities made a video of the national prison officer expansion meeting, please submit all the video data and the minutes of the meeting or the participants in the meeting. I'll ask you a question.

First of all, I'm embarrassed because each investigative agency is investigating to catch a monster who is making Yoon Suk Yeol with each other. Please turn up the screen. The National Police Agency's National Investigation Headquarters immediately arrested Police Commissioner Jo Ji-ho, Seoul Commissioner Kim Bong-sik, Intelligence Commander Moon Sang-ho, and former Intelligence Commander Roh Sang-won. And now, the National Police Agency's National Police Agency, the High-ranking Civil Servant Crime Investigation Office, and the Ministry of National Defense's Investigation Headquarters have established a joint investigation headquarters and are now investigating in earnest. Please show us the next one. The prosecution's special investigation team has arrested Kim Yong-hyun, Park An-soo, the key figures in the December 3 civil war case, today. Yeo In-hyeong, Kwak Jong-geun, and Lee Jin-woo are being quickly arrested and investigated, but as the head of the court administration said today, this right is very controversial and it is very worrisome because this illegal investigation could become a problem later. Chief of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, on the 8th, you asked the prosecution and the police for a transfer of the rebellion case, and now the National Police Agency has taken a transfer.

[Park Eun-jung]
I got some transfers, but please show me the next one that I won't do. According to the media report today, the media report said that they are reviewing the transfer. By the way, according to Article 24 of the Corruption Investigations Unit Act, is it correct that we have to comply with the request for transfer?

[Oh Dongwoon] It's
right. It's a mandatory regulation and a mandatory provision.

[Park Eun-jung]
The prosecution's refusal to transfer now can be problematic due to a violation of mandatory regulations. 12. Immediately after the declaration of the third civil war, Yeo In-hyeong, the commander of counterintelligence, ordered Jeong Seong-woo, the first chief of counterintelligence, to conduct martial law-related duties, and Jeong Seong-woo, the first chief of the National Intelligence Service, will come from the prosecution and the National Intelligence Service. It has now been reported in the media that the prosecution and the National Intelligence Service mentioned the prosecution and the National Intelligence Service that the important tasks will be done by the prosecution and the National Intelligence Service, so they can only apply to them. Then, I think the prosecution is the subject of the investigation of this civil war case and cannot be the subject of the investigation. I think the investigation should later reveal how the prosecution conspired with the president or the presidential office at the time of this civil war and whether it conspired with the martial law command.

Because of course, there was some collusion with the prosecution, so the prosecution will come, and isn't it presumed that there was a conspiracy between each other that the Supreme Prosecutors' Forensics Center would forensics this NEC's server? Then, it is a coordinated force in the civil war case. Deputy Minister of Justice, according to Article 4 (2) of the Prosecutor's Office Act, the prosecutor cannot file a prosecution against the crimes he/she has posted in his/her investigation.

You know that clause, right? Then, the special prosecutor is investigating Kim Yong-hyun, etc., and if this is prosecuted, the prosecution of the special prosecutor could violate Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Prosecutor's Office Act. This is because there is room for the prosecutor who initiated the investigation to be interpreted as having prosecuted. Therefore, the prosecution's investigation itself is illegal, and even if prosecuted later, there is a possibility of violating the Prosecutor's Office Act. So the prosecution has to pull out of this case. Please show us the next one. The suspect's Yoon Suk Yeol refused to investigate the inspection like that when I was inspecting it by the Ministry of Justice four years ago. He continued to refuse face-to-face inspections and sent away prosecutors who went to do door-to-door inspections.

And all of a sudden, a prosecutor at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office chased the Ministry of Justice and threw it away. Originally, the suspect and the person subject to inspection by the prosecutor general at the time must be sincerely inspected. Nevertheless, they refused to comply with the inspection, and their refusal to comply with the inspection is also included in the fact of misconduct. at the time of the Justice Department's disciplinary action However, they are not responding to the request of the cooperation headquarters or the prosecution to attend the investigation by the Yoon Suk Yeol of the rebellion. According to Article 200-2 and 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an arrest warrant is required if the suspect fails to comply with the request for attendance, but an arrest warrant can also be issued if there is a risk of failing to comply with the request for attendance. However, today, the headquarters of the cooperation center has been trying to send a request for attendance to the suspect's Yoon Suk Yeol since yesterday, but refused, and today it was returned again. Is it right?

[Oh Dongwoon]
It turns out that the official residence has refused to receive it.

[Park Eun-jung]
If a third party receives it, it will be served, but it seems that the third party won't be able to receive it either. This is also an abuse of authority. It can be an abuse of authority. But anyway, I haven't received this attendance request, and I'm delaying the procedure and not responding to this procedure. Then, there is a concern that you will not comply with the attendance request. Correct the arrest warrant. Even if you get an arrest warrant immediately and arrest the suspect's Yoon Suk Yeol, I think this is legally equivalent to Article 200-2 and 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to the impeachment decision against former President Park Geun Hye, President Park Geun Hye's refusal to comply with the independent counsel on Choi Soon-sil's manipulation of state affairs and the prosecution's investigation shows that he is not willing to protect the constitution in itself.

So it's written in the decision that it's a reason for dismissal. The president's refusal to comply with the investigation is not willing to protect the Constitution because he said he would cooperate with the independent counsel and prosecutors' investigation as much as possible at the time. That's why you can be fired. It's been decided like this. The suspect's Yoon Suk Yeol's refusal to comply with the prosecution's investigation with the cooperation headquarters has no will to protect the constitution. a self-defeating .

[Odongwoon]
Well noted.

[Chairman]
Let me check additionally briefly regarding lawmaker Park Eun-jung's question. Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and Deputy Minister of Justice. Listen carefully, both of you. There is Article 200-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an emergency arrest clause. I'll read it for you. If a prosecutor or judicial police officer has considerable reasons to suspect that the suspect has committed a crime equivalent to the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for more than three years, and if he/she is unable to obtain an arrest warrant for a district court judge due to urgency, he/she may notify the reason and arrest the suspect without a warrant. In this case, it is urgent. Ham refers to when there is no time to obtain an arrest warrant, such as when the suspect is accidentally found. It's like this.

So, 1, when the suspect is likely to destroy the evidence. 2, When the suspect runs away or is likely to run away. You're supposed to be arrested at times like this. Now, Yoon Suk Yeol falls under this clause because it is possible to lead to a rebellion and even the death penalty. Isn't there a risk of destroying evidence? You're subject to an emergency arrest. And as Rep. Park Eun-jung said during the questioning process, she is not making conditions for non-compliance. The Constitutional Court is not receiving anything, and the police are not receiving summonses, and they are being returned. What is this, it's not making the conditions for non-compliance.