[Issue Plus] President Yoon's "I don't agree"...Han Deok-soo's veto battle

■ Host: Lee Yeo-jin, anchor Jang Won-seok
■ Appearance: Kim Ki-heung, former deputy spokesperson for the president's office, Cho Ki-yeon, vice chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea's legal committee

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

[Anchor]
Let's take a look at today's Jungkook situation with the two. Kim Ki-heung, former vice spokesperson for the president's office, and Cho Ki-yeon, vice chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea's legal committee, came out. Hello, President Yoon's side has expressed its position again today. By today, there was an analysis that I might talk about the plan to attend the investigative agency, but that was not the case. How did you like it?

[Kim Gi-heung]
Didn't the president make a position on December 12th on the part of martial law? As the investigation was conducted by the police, the prosecution, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, there was high interest in when the summons would take place, media interest, and public interest. As the defense team has not yet been set up on the part that it is difficult to make a specific date on this part, can't we not respond to the media about this part? That's why I think we've responded to the minimum amount of media. At today's meeting, there is no such thing as saying that we will summon on a specific day in the future. However, it was a place to emphasize the inevitability of martial law through lawyers and through lawyer Seok Dong-hyun, the so-called civil war, and that the investigation authorities are now investigating, and this is not a civil war.

[Anchor]
How did Vice Chairman Cho Ki-yeon hear it?

[Early Delayed]
I didn't know why they were doing this press conference. How would the people have seen this? In fact, I made comments related to the establishment of the crime of rebellion, but it is embarrassing to say that it is a legal evaluation. You said, "Where is there a civil war that says 'I'm going to fight'?" On that day, the special statement on the emergency martial law itself, decree No. 1, and the subsequent deployment of martial law forces to take control of the National Assembly must be recognized as an act of rebellion. So the president's declaration of martial law on December 3rd itself is a rebellion. [Voiceover] That's right. It's not even a legal argument to connect this with a two-hour rebellion conspiracy.

If the defense of the crime of rebellion and the defense logic of the Constitutional Court's impeachment proceedings are constructed in this way, the impeachment proceedings will be over without a long hearing, and whether the crime of rebellion has already been established is very specific through statements from the Special Forces Commander or the National Police Agency Commissioner. It seems that related circumstances and direct evidence have been secured considerably through seizure and search. Now, the remarks boast that they can be argued enough legally, but I don't think they are anything more than that to rally supporters through political agitation because there is nothing to argue about.

[Anchor]
Seok Dong-hyun, a lawyer for President Yoon Suk Yeol, expressed his position on the investigation, saying he could not agree on the crime of rebellion. Let's listen to the story and talk about it. Even though the president said that he never mentioned arresting him, isn't it a position that goes against the statements of various military officials?

[Kim Gi-heung]
In fact, when there are conflicting statements, we'll look at the objective evidence, the situation. However, it is clear that not one but the voices of several field commanders said that there was something direct from the president, which is not in favor of the president. But the problem is that in some ways, the president did this to reduce his responsibility in the field, isn't there room for him to do this? I think it should be argued through the investigation of the investigative agency and through evidence and legal principles. If we often say martial law, don't we think of martial law on December 12, 1979?

In the case of General Chun Doo-hwan's martial law, in fact, the general used physical force to usurp a certain regime, but in this case, the president is the president, so there is no reason for a coup to overturn the regime. So, as the president said, the current opposition party cannot actually function properly through constant impeachment, special prosecution, and reduced budgets, and this situation has been defined as a national emergency. If so, can't the National Assembly proceed with the lifting process when such martial law is declared?

In the process of lifting the martial law, the current opposition party or the media did a physical exercise to prevent martial law from being lifted in this area. However, as mentioned earlier, in the case of lawyer Seok Dong-hyun, this is the most important point as he said that there was no arrest in the part ordered by the president himself.

[Anchor]
I'll tell you something that just came in. I'm very sorry that the police special team confiscated Woo Jong-soo's cell phone. On the day of martial law, prosecutors investigating allegations that violent detectives participated in the arrest of key figures launched a forced investigation into the police and the Ministry of National Defense and confiscated cell phones for General Manager Woo Jong-soo. However, the police confiscated it as a reference, and the Dong-A Ilbo said it would continue the investigation without wavering the system. We'll give you more details in the news that follows. In addition to what we sent you earlier today, we also held a meeting with foreign reporters. Do you think it is intentional to hold a meeting with reporters internally and externally?

[Early Delayed]
So, we are not responding to the request for attendance right now. The Constitutional Court's impeachment proceedings have already begun. In addition, compulsory investigation procedures are scheduled soon to secure human beings in connection with the investigation. In this situation, it is said that the legal response process, such as the appointment of a lawyer, must be initiated, but the defense team is still not formed. I think it's just for the purpose of dragging my feet. Aren't you not even being served while continuing to talk about the appointment of lawyers or the preparation of procedures? In this process, it seems that they are first attempting to change the situation through public opinion.

On the contrary, lawyer Seok Dong-hyun's remarks to the foreign press club and foreign media today, as well as the press conference in the afternoon, the more I hear about the president's perception of the emergency martial law and civil war, the less it is that he will protect the constitutional order. I think the legal system and the constitutional system I think are right, and I can do anything with this idea, and I keep showing that I have not changed my mind at all despite the fact that this national emergency has been going on for more than two weeks. In my opinion, the actions since then will be very disadvantageous in establishing the crime of rebellion in the Constitutional Court because they serve as a reference for what they perceived during the emergency crisis and affect their judgment.

[Anchor]
I haven't finished forming the defense team yet, I said this, when can I finish it?

[Kim Gi-heung]
Didn't some people mention it in the media? Kim Hong-il, former chairman of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, is mentioned and Yoon Gap-geun, deputy chief of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, is talking about the Constitutional Court's trial and the investigation agency criminally, so you need to see a lawyer in relation to the Constitutional Court and then a lawyer in relation to criminal proceedings. And isn't there a situation where the president has to match each one of the things that are being reported in the media during the investigation process and go to the scene and conduct a summons?

In exercising his right to defend himself, shouldn't the president not just vaguely go out and say what he wants to say, but should he do it about the facts in order to respond to each specifically raised suspicion? And for the charge of rebellion to be applied, as the opposition claims, it is not a crime of one person if it is a rebellion, is it? Since it is done collectively, if you say that you gave instructions, you have to cross-check what level you gave instructions and how former Minister Kim Yong-hyun did it in the middle, but I don't think I can because I'm in custody right now.

I think it will take some time because we have to look back on the overall situation that night and until dawn, and whether there is a legal problem with what happened on the spot, no matter what the intention is.

[Anchor]
Since you're a lawyer, I'll also ask you this. Some predict that President Yoon will seek an injunction to lift the suspension of his duties. Is this actually possible?

[Early Delayed]
There is no rule that says no, so you can. However, there is no possibility of accepting it at all. Because Article 65 of the Constitution, the articles of impeachment are the articles of the Constitution. So, when the impeachment motion is resolved, the duty is simply suspended under Article 68 (3) of the Constitution. It's stipulated in the Constitution. There is no reason for the Constitutional Court to accept an application to suspend its effectiveness with this matter. Suspension of actual duties means that major public officials who performed unconstitutional or illegal duties were excluded from public office duties and judged by the Constitutional Court to prevent the risk of continuing to do so.

If this provisional injunction is allowed to resume his duties until the decision is made, some people still warn that President Yoon Suk Yeol's current perception is very dangerous and that another martial law and military action could be possible in a different way from the emergency martial law of December 3rd, so it is not acceptable in terms of content and is unlikely to be accepted even under the purpose of Article 63, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

[Anchor]
By the way, has the Constitutional Court accepted a provisional injunction in the impeachment trial?

[Early Delayed]
does not exist.

[Anchor]
In impeachment trials other than the president?

[Early Delayed]
That's right. No such application was ever filed in the impeachment proceedings. It's unprecedented.

[Kim Gi-heung]
But what I want to say is that the Democratic Party's abuse of impeachment so far has the potential to accept it. For example, if you look at the Democratic Party right now, hasn't it overused impeachment even though there are no significant constitutional and illegal reasons to be impeached? In fact, that's why the impeachment that was brought up by the Democratic Party has not been cited. Then, isn't it partially neutralized during that period? The organization is not rolling. Therefore, the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office and the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection applied for this provisional injunction. But what's interesting now is, didn't the Democratic Party impeach 3 prosecutors? I didn't go to a hearing about him.

If so, they actually impeached them because they were innocent of Kim Gun-hee, but in reality, these people at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office have to work on the investigation, prosecution, and maintenance of prosecution of Lee Jae-myung. So, it was very clear that the Democratic Party of Korea's intention was to suspend impeachment so that it would not actually work because it had a serious crime. If so, from the Constitutional Court's point of view, impeachment is overused, so shouldn't state agencies and things like that go back? From that point of view, I can't say that there is no possibility of being accepted at all. Another thing I want to say is that the Constitutional Court has six members, right?

In this regard, the Democratic Party virtually paralyzed the function by making it six. They haven't recommended it to the National Assembly for a while. However, Lee Jin-sook, chairman of the Korea Communications Standards Commission, made a provisional injunction regarding this. Originally, a provisional injunction was issued to suspend the effect of the regulation, which should be heard when there are more than seven people, but it was cited. The Democratic Party cited the provisional injunction to prevent the Constitutional Court from working because the National Assembly did not recommend it. So, it may not be easy to cite a provisional injunction regarding impeachment, which is actually a single case, but given the Democratic Party's behavior so far, there is room for the Constitutional Court to consider this. That's how I see it.

[Anchor] Can I return to work as soon as I get a provisional injunction?

[Early Delayed]
It's possible if it's accepted. But it doesn't seem likely. Well, I don't know. Since it is the president who claims to overuse other reasons for impeachment and uses it as a reason for emergency martial law, the people's power still asserts that it is possible to dispose of the president's suspension, but it is different from those issues. And I don't think it will be accepted even on the premise that provisional disposition is allowed because there is a clear unconstitutional and illegal reason for civil war.

[Anchor]
Right now, President Yoon is not receiving documents related to impeachment. So, if the document is not delivered, can the trial preparation date scheduled for the 27th and next Friday proceed as scheduled? How do you view it?

[Early Delayed]
I think the Constitutional Court will proceed as scheduled. There are no detailed regulations in service, so you can consider service as scheduled by the Constitutional Court now. Aren't all the related referee schedules already disclosed through the media? There is no reason for the Constitutional Court to wait any longer because it is clear that they do not accept it on purpose. We have to submit an answer by the 24th, and on the preparation date scheduled for the 27th, we have to organize the submission of evidence, methods, and how to proceed in the future. If such an opinion is not submitted, the intention to set up another preparation date and delay it in this way seems clear, but in the past cases of Park Geun Hye presidents, they wait at least once, but if they deliberately delay the process like this, they just proceed. I don't know this time, but I don't know if the Constitutional Court will think about it once on the 27th, but based on the attitude shown now, the preparation period will proceed as originally scheduled by the 24th and the 27th.

[Anchor]
Didn't lawyer Seok Dong-hyun have a related question today? How did you see this part when you said you didn't know?

[Kim Gi-heung]
Strictly speaking, lawyer Seok Dong-hyun is not yet an official lawyer. So, when lawyers were prepared, he made a kind of press window on what the media and the public were curious about before that. Through communication with the president, I thought it would be better to talk about this. In fact, what lawyer Seok Dong-hyun said today can be seen as a line that the president once again publicly talked about the inevitability of martial law through a public statement on December 12. In fact, the investigation authorities are summoning them now, but why aren't they doing it? I think I talked about the president's position in this situation, whether it is a so-called holdout or a delayed operation, and that it is inevitable.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, Acting President Han Deok-soo held an extraordinary state council meeting today and exercised his right to demand reconsideration on six bills, including the Grain Management Act. It should be seen as a repetition of the government's existing position, right?

[Kim Gi-heung]
That's right. The president has been suspended, but the acting president is not the acting president of another government. That's why it's done in light of the future of the country and the spirit of the constitution. So, from our point of view, if we have a lot of money, of course, we want to give it to farmers. But the money is not from the president's pocket, is it? It's the people's taxes. I have no choice but to think about finance, but it costs more than 1 trillion won every year, not 1 trillion won at a time. For example, in the case of grain management methods, rice prices fall.

But the price of rice... We don't actually eat a lot right now, right? If so, it's partially compensated for it with finance. Then rice farmers will continue to grow rice and continue to grow rice. Then it's an infinite repetition. Then, the national finances are bound to continue to be invested, and storage costs hundreds of billions of won. And if you look at another thing, there is the National Assembly Testimony Appraisal Act, which, from our perspective, called a company in the National Assembly. Then, isn't it common sense not to have to disclose personal information or trade secrets? But I didn't let him do that. Eventually, it may be anti-market and trade secrets may leak abroad. Would you come in this situation when you invest in our country from abroad?

In the end, I thought it was an anti-market law that prevents companies from actually working, so this is not to protect President Yoon Suk Yeol's individual rights, but to demand reconsideration for the people's livelihood and the people. I'm not saying we can't, but if we think about it again and reach more than 2,200 people, it will be passed. That's why it's hard to accept to define it as "no communication" and "It's season 2 of the Yoon Suk Yeol government."

[Anchor]
Since acting Han exercised his right to demand reconsideration, which is an active authority, the right to appoint a constitutional judge should also be exercised, is this the Democratic Party of Korea's position?

[Early Delayed]
The right to request reconsideration itself was inappropriate.Apart from that, the right to appoint a constitutional judge must of course be exercised. According to the Constitution, most constitutional scholars interpret that the president's right to appoint is a formal right to appoint the three judges elected by the National Assembly. Floor leader Kwon Sung-dong said the same thing in February 2017. Of course, at that time, the president's right to appoint is a formal right to appoint because it is recommended by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding the appointment of Judge Lee Jung-mi, former Judge Lee Sun-ae, so he argued that it should be appointed. At that time, President Park Geun Hye tried to delay the process with the Constitutional Court's appointment or a new judge, so Kwon Sung-dong, then chairman of the prosecution committee, said that the appointment should be made quickly.

Even if it is contrary to what you have said and the Constitution stipulates the composition of nine Constitutional Court judges, there is no constitutional problem even if the National Assembly's recommendation is appointed by the acting president.

[Anchor]
Anyway, acting authority Han Deok-soo is in charge of the appointment, so what do you think about the change in position? You just explained it again.I.

[Kim Ki-heung]
It means that I don't think I will passively do anything about the appointment right while exercising my veto. That's not true. When considering the principles, it is a regulation on whether it is a vacancy or an accident. So it's the difference between whether the president cited the Constitution or not regarding impeachment. So, considering the situation eight years ago, Park Han-chul's case was before the impeachment of former President Park Geun Hye was cited. That's why I didn't appoint him. Because the president was suspended from office, wasn't he actually there? But is it Lee Sun-ae, the part where he is appointed is that former President Park Geun Hye was impeached. Then isn't it a fight, not an accident. From that point of view, we haven't changed our position, but that's what I want to say. The Constitutional Court is a nine-member system, and the Democratic Party, which did not recommend it when it became a six-member system, is now doing this again to fight for speed because the president is impeached. So, it's okay if you apologize for what you didn't do before and make a request in this part, but about what you've done so far, you just said you don't know and now you're rowing because the water came in. If the president opposes the six-member system, wouldn't it be possible to cite the impeachment?

In that respect, there is a political aspect to establish a system of nine people and then make it more than six people. So before the ruling and opposition parties fight this, I would like the opposition to basically express a little regret for their actions so far.

[Early Delayed]
Let me just check two facts. The floor leader Kwon Sung-dong said that on February 1, 2017. As of that point, the date of the impeachment trial has not been confirmed. So I'd like to tell you that this logic cannot change depending on whether it's a cigarette or an accident. This time, the ruling and opposition parties have been discussing recommendations for three vacancies since October. Therefore, the public's position to recommend one opposition party, one ruling party, and one person as agreed upon and the logic that the Democratic Party should recommend two people based on the number of seats continued to draw parallel lines, and the agreement was reached four days before the impeachment on November 29.

The Democratic Party agreed to recommend two and the People's Power to recommend one. So, the discussion that the discussion should continue and fill this gap quickly has been made between the ruling and opposition parties, but after the agreement, the emergency martial law broke out, and we will proceed according to the agreed procedure.

[Anchor]
Right now, the Democratic Party seems to be considering the timing of impeachment of the acting president. We'll see if we appoint a constitutional judge or not. It seems that they will consider whether to exercise the right to demand reconsideration of the Special Prosecutor for Insurrection and Kim Gun-hee's Special Prosecutor Act, but isn't there a controversy over the quorum of the acting president's impeachment? Is it 200 people or 150 people?

[Early Delayed]
It is clear that acting Han Deok-soo is the subject of an investigation as a suspect because he participated in a preliminary Cabinet meeting in connection with the civil war. There was also a controversy over whether it was right to serve as an acting president.Considering the national confusion and the decline of external credibility after the emergency martial law, Ma recognized it as an acting authority because it is necessary to stabilize Prime Minister Han Deok-soo's experience in state affairs and such, not that he has no problem.

The exercise of the right to request reconsideration this time is also a problem, and it is against the Constitution. Nevertheless, we do not prioritize the impeachment discussion of Acting President Han Deok-soo.
This is because the Democratic Party is fully aware of the confusion and concerns that will come when that happens. Of course, the situation afterwards needs to be watched. If the independent counsel for rebellion or the independent counsel for Kim Gun-hee vetoes it, this is a completely different phase. If the Democratic Party goes that far, and if it delays the appointment of a constitutional judge, it will clearly go beyond the scope of the acting president's power and continue to maintain this confusion, so if it comes to that point and that situation, we will not have to consider impeaching him. However, at this point, I am not in this position to push for impeachment despite the exercise of the right to demand reconsideration today.

[Anchor]
I see. I can't help but talk about the power of the people. I've been thinking about who will be the chairman of the emergency committee for several days, and I heard some people say that Kim Jae-seop's card is coming out. What's the basis for this?

[Kim Gi-heung]
Isn't there Lee Joon-seok, the leader of the People's Power Party, the New Reform Party? He said he was 37 years old when he became the party leader. But is Rep. Kim Jae-seop 35 years old now, I'm confused. I'm confused about whether I'm 35 or 37, but anyway, Lee Joon-seok, the leader of the party, is younger and younger than when he became the leader of the People's Power Party. But when I personally look at Rep. Kim Jae-seop, he has a strong belief. Nevertheless, you can communicate very well in conversation with other people. So, I think there is democratic leadership that does its best but sometimes tries to find a point of contact by conceding one's position.

And we are clearly opposed to martial law, but we are being criticized for advocating martial law because the rejection was a party theory, not in favor of impeachment. Impeachment and martial law cannot be equated. They oppose martial law, but they cannot say that impeachment is the only answer to solving this problem. From that point of view, will we focus on change and reform when we take new leadership, or won't an early presidential election be held if impeachment is cited anyway? If so, I think the logical composition of the situation may be different as to whether someone with experience can build such a stable presidential election.

However, there seems to be a little objection within the party as to whether the current new floor leader Kwon Sung-dong will be one-top or even the chairman of the emergency committee. There seems to be a disagreement. In that respect, there seems to be an opinion that rather than one person having all the power as a one-top, Rep. Kwon Sung-dong should use the floor strategy and then represent the party with a young face and blood. However, the public opinion is that the current representative Han Dong-hoon's system has collapsed, but since he has a short political experience in extraterritorial accidents, why don't we go with a stable voice this time? So, as far as I know, lawmakers Kwon Young-se and Na Kyung-won are being mentioned.

So far, the final result has not come out, and I understand that the emergency committee chairman is recommended by each player next week, and after one or two of them are recommended, Rep. Kwon Sung-dong and the floor leader are deciding this because they are acting as an acting president.

[Anchor]
Former intelligence commander Roh Sang-won was arrested yesterday evening, and isn't he suspected of waiting for the North Korean spy unit HID at the intelligence office before martial law? However, the first task of Kim Byung-joo, the supreme council member of the Democratic Party, was to kidnap the heads of the National Election Commission and key practitioners of the North Korean Workers' Union. That's what I said.

[Early Delayed]
It was a shocking story. Supreme Council member Kim Byung-joo revealed it today. The most important task of investigating the current emergency martial law civil war is why the HID unit was mobilized. It was confirmed that they had come and prepared, and that the personnel had begun to be dispatched from October and November, but it was not clear about the operations and roles of the HID members. What was HID going to do because it was not true to operate them as an arrest team, and because it was possible to carry out its duties through intelligence command agents in relation to the NEC. First of all, Supreme Council member Kim Byung-joo disclosed the report today, and shockingly, he kidnapped 30 NEC employees, not arrested.

It is a legitimate arrest under martial law or martial law by law. He kidnapped her, grabbed her head, tied her hands and feet, and then tried to detain her. So, for the purpose of this emergency decree, the purpose of identifying fraudulent elections, the primary goal was to kidnap and detain key working-level employees involved in the election watchdog in this way. If the primary operation was there, would that be it? If you first called the HID members for a period of about two weeks, there will be many missions after that. The HID unit is a North Korean operative and performs special operations that cause actual disturbances and such, so it is expected that there have been enough missions and roles since then. Therefore, I think the fact-finding related to HID is the most important issue to be addressed and confirmed in relation to this rebellion.

[Anchor]
Call out the list of all 30 members of the NEC, tie all your wrists and ankles with cable ties, wear a mask, and bring them to the B1 bunker, what did you think?

[Kim Gi-heung]
As far as I know, isn't this the information that Representative Kim Byung-joo received first? But I don't think there should be such a part. However, it is not yet stated in the warrant from the prosecution or police investigation stage, but it is not easy for me to affirm this part because it is the report received by Representative Kim Byung-joo. Once again, didn't Kim Eo-jun come out of the National Assembly and say a lot about assassination and then attacking the U.S. military and causing a war?

However, according to the Democratic Party's internal documents, it is not true. Because before declaring martial law, those things should be the cause and driving force for declaring martial law, but didn't that actually happen? In the end, it cannot be asserted that the aspect of a report is actually a little fake news based on a few things, but there is a side that is becoming a little sensational as various unconfirmed things are added. I think the Democratic Party has the power and the ability to access the current situation in the face of the opposition party. So, rather than immediately claiming this on the spot, we can do the National Defense Commission through facts, and as the investigation is being conducted now, I hope that if this is true, we will cooperate and provide information that attacks the ruling party properly.

[Anchor]
I see. Let's stop here today. Kim Ki-heung, former vice spokesperson for the president's office, and Cho Ki-yeon, vice chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea's legal committee. Thank you both.