與 Cho Hae-jin said, "Don't turn it off anymore. I need a sincere 'Mrs. Kim's Apology' now."

[News FM Lee Ik-seon Choi Soo-young Issue & People]
□ Broadcast Date: October 2, 2024 (Wednesday)

□ Host: Lee Ik-seon, Choi Soo-young
□ Performers: Cho Hae-jin, former member of the People's Power, Kim Byung-joo, supreme council member of the Democratic Party of Korea

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information.

- 尹 - 與 leadership dinner, no 'party representative passing'...The regular parliamentary inspection of the National Assembly is a floor issue
- Kim Byung-joo, "The 尹 and 與 leadership dinner is a passing and vote control dinner..." I feel the stubbornness of the 尹 again."

◇ Lee Ik-seon: It's time for Jungkook's friends. Let's take a sharp look at the current issues while there are witty remarks and stories, not Gang-dae-gang confrontations. I called the people who are with me at this time as comfortable friends. Rep. Kim Byung-joo of the Democratic Party of Korea and Rep. Cho Hae-jin of the People's Power are here. Please come in. Thank you for coming.

☆ Kim Byung-joo, ★ Cho Hae-jin: Hello.

◇ Lee Ik-seon: Let me ask you the first question.

◈ Choi Soo-young: President Yoon vetoed the Kim Gun-hee Special Prosecutor Act, the Marine Corps Special Prosecutor Act, and the Local Currency Act earlier today, which passed the National Assembly plenary session led by the opposition party. If the Democratic Party said it would do it if the veto was transferred, would it put it right back on the 4th?

☆ Kim Byung-joo: Yes. It's expected to be on Friday. In fact, I think the president admitted that he was guilty of the veto, either himself or Kim Gun-hee's spouse. I want to give you back what you said, but why reject the special counsel? Aren't you refusing because you're guilty? In fact, the Kim Gun-hee Special Counsel Act is very related to the spouse, and there are about eight suspicions in it. And the Chae Il-Byeong Special Prosecutor Act is a special prosecutor law that is related to the president himself, and it seems to me that exercising the right to veto it is self-evident that he is guilty. In fact, the anger gauge of the people is going up. The people want an independent counsel. So, we are planning to re-decide and vote on the 4th. I think this is also the will of the people.

◇ Lee Ik-seon: Yes. Senator Cho, what did you think?

★ Cho Hae-jin: I think the reason for refusing the independent counsel was because of the crime, but there are cases where candidate Lee Jae-myung refused to do the independent counsel in Daejang-dong during the presidential election, but there are cases where he has to refuse because the legal requirements do not fit, and when there is a fear of distorting the truth and misleading public opinion due to the possibility of political abuse, he has no choice but to reject it. I've always said that the opposition party should have the right to appoint a special prosecutor in the case of Kim Gun-hee's special prosecutor law, but the fact that a partisan prosecutor has no choice but to be the special prosecutor because he becomes the head of the opposition party, not the head of the National Assembly, but the special prosecutor's list of investigation targets shows that it started during the Moon Jae In administration and brought back the fact that it was already cleared of charges, or as in the case of the Diorback case this time, there is a moral problem, but there is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party of Korea politically, like the Yangpyeong case. Most of them are made and put into the subject of investigation. So even if it's not related to the president or the first lady, the president has no choice but to reject it. In the case of the Coporal Chae Special Prosecutor Act, I've told you many times before, but if there's a problem, you have to adjust it again when the request for reconsideration comes, but on the other hand, it's made it more difficult to reject, so there's no room for further discussion. In the case of the Local Currency Act, don't the Moon Jae In government spray cash like that, and prices are going to go through the roof and ordinary people will die? If you can't do business and eat out, and you ask to give it to them again, this is not in the pocket of the person who wants to give it to you, but it's a debt that has to be paid back with national taxes, and if prices go up, it's a waste to give it to them. If the price is there, it's meaningful when you add a lot more to it. Then if the price rises as much as I do, it's the same. So even if it's not the president of Yoon Suk Yeol, but other governments, they have no choice but to reject it if they think of the people and think of the country in common sense. So if you're trying to make it, you have to think about it from now on. We need to think about it, adjust our opinions between the ruling and opposition parties, and make it possible, but if we say that it's going to be re-voted right away, it's not that we're asking for this, it's just a political offensive.

☆ Kim Byung-joo: It is not only the president's veto power, but also the president's authority in the constitution. But if you look closely, the president's authority is not all exercised. Because this obviously has to do with conflicts of interest. The public can't understand that the independent counsel Kim Gun-hee, who is related to his spouse, and the law, which is related to Chae Il-Byeong, are vetoed here because they are related to conflicts of interest. In fact, if you're proud, you have to get an independent counsel. You have to take it and rob it, but they think they're guilty, so shouldn't they continue to veto it? Don't get that judgment in the general election and veto it in the first general election. Don't change the state administration, change it. There were public sentiment in this general election and there were 1.43 million petitions for impeachment. I need to hear the public's voice, but I don't know if the president can hear the people's voice or not due to the My Dong style.

◈ Choi Soo-young: I heard that what you said was the general atmosphere of the people's power.The important thing then is whether there will be a leave vote if there is a re-vote, and the President is having an invitation dinner for the floor delegation and the standing committee chairmen today. Should I say that it's a dinner with a little intention?

★ Cho Hae-jin: I think there may be expectations. Even if it's not necessarily this issue, the Democratic Party is trying to make the regular session of the National Assembly an impeachment. In addition, the parliamentary audit is also trying to attract public opinion by using Kim Gun-hee's parliamentary inspection, so the number of our ruling party is small, and there is an expectation that the ruling party will accurately recognize the situation and do it properly. But I don't think I did this because of that. Because I always do this before the regular session of the National Assembly. During the Park Geun Hye presidency, I went to the Blue House to have a dinner, and during the Moon Jae In presidency, we talked together as the chairman of the Board of Education and had a luncheon.

◈ Choi Soo-young: If I ask you one more question, but the floor leader is going, but the party leader is missing, so isn't this passing the party leader? Speaking of this, please say something about this analysis that it may be more and more difficult for the two of you to meet in the future.

★ Cho Hae-jin: The controversy over passing the party leader has already come out at the last dinner. I came out because I didn't ask you to speak publicly, but you attended then. And isn't it a floor issue this time? Someone at the regular session of the National Assembly would have never been there. Maybe only the floor leaders of the chairman, the standing chairman, and the executive secretary went. Since only those lawmakers who participated in the regular session of the National Assembly and participated in the parliamentary inspection attended, there is no reason to call the representative, or if they didn't call the previous one, but there is no reason to call the representative. It's not a big issue whether or not the representative will attend here, but how does the president carry out the fact that he wants to meet the president separately to report and discuss the situation? That's the only issue, but there's no need to go to the floor leader's dinner.

☆ Kim Byung-joo: It's an impeachment audit that Representative Cho said, but I can't agree with that. Parliamentary audit is the unique role and duty of the National Assembly. As a means of checking the government, there is a national audit. So, isn't it the parliamentary audit that makes each standing committee correct various wrongs or things about the government? The power of the people is being driven by the impeachment audit, and it seems that the power of the people themselves is giving up to become a member of the National Assembly. If that's how you drive appreciation... and tonight's dinner is what I see as a ticket check dinner. If only eight impeachment votes are cast, it will be passed. So I passed the party leader because I had to crack down on votes, so I think I'm going like this, including the floor leader. The party leader actually asked me to have an interview, but I like it. Go one step further and do it again without the party leader. Poop nibble. I'm going to show you this stubborn thing one more time. It seems that the status of the party leader also shows this conflict between the president of Yoon Suk Yeol. I think I'm afraid of eight votes this time. Conflicts between close and pro-Yoon lawmakers have begun to surface. Some of the close lawmakers should apologize. There are also talks about this, so I think it's a dinner like this to crack down on tickets. What about the people? Even though your life is on alert because of the medical crisis, you are only enjoying the dinner. This is not the time to enjoy dinner while taking care of the meat menu. After receiving the special prosecution, please invite the ruling party members to watch the parliamentary audit while having a dinner like this. That's not what you're doing. So I hope the members of the People's Power Party will stay alert.

★ Cho Hae-jin: We don't do the inspection as an inspection of impeachment, but the Democratic Party just sets the coordinates and the entire regular session of the National Assembly is just counting its goals to revive the inspection of the National Assembly during the 2016 regular session. Everything is built up. Speaking of soccer, the build-up process is all the same. At that time, the parliamentary inspection of Choi Soon-sil and the National Assembly are proceeding with the impeachment, and they move the same way outside the office as they did then. The KCTU is moving and the impeachment action alliance is moving. And accordingly, it's the same as then that Democratic lawmakers participate again and now participate on a personal level. Then, the Democratic Party went to the party level. Because I'm taking that step. It's our position not to do that, but it's the Democratic Party that's going that way.

☆ Kim Byung-joo: How much public suspicion is directed at Mrs. Kim Gun-hee? From the eight nomination interventions to luxury bags and Deutsche Motors stock price manipulation, whenever there are many suspicions, the main actor is always Kim Gun-hee, and then it should be considered during the parliamentary audit.

◇ Lee Ik-seon: As you may well know, there are voices within the ruling party that Kim Gun-hee should apologize or express her position ahead of the re-decision of the Special Prosecutor Act on the next question, but in the case of Rep. Shin Ji-ho, an apology that lowers public anger can help manage risks. In the case of lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun, wouldn't he want to apologize on the radio? These voices are coming out, saying they have a heart of apology to the people for being the center of the controversy. In the meantime, Prime Minister Han Deok-soo said in a recent interview that President Yoon Suk Yeol apologized at the press conference for the second anniversary of his inauguration, so the people should understand. What do you think of Mrs. Kim's direct apology or statement of position?

★ Cho Hae-jin: What the president apologized for is meaningful again. From the people's point of view, the president's apology was an expression of regret for not being able to prevent the spouse's problem from rising up like this, or to deal with it quickly. Mrs. Kim Geon-hee's apology also seems to be the opinion that an apology is needed for the part of the people who are disappointed with the person concerned. During the presidential election process, Kim Gun-hee apologized in front of the media as a wife of then-candidate Kim Gun-hee, and some people devalue it, but it was definitely meaningful to me at that time. The people's acceptance was also wrong, so I think it was meaningful in making them win in the end in a close game, so if the president is facing difficulties in state affairs in many ways and worries the people about the first lady's issue, it will be burdensome for a spouse to come to Korea. In that respect, even if there is no legal problem, based on this of the expectations of the first lady, who is disappointed by the people at the moral or moral level, you need to solve the disappointment yourself.

◇ Lee Ik-seon: So when do you think the timing is good? Right now? Or after the investigation is complete?

★ Cho Hae-jin: It's a good way to deal with the controversy after it's organized in the legal part, so it's common sense from a pure procedural point of view. Considering the fact that the president's approval rating continues to decline further, the power will be greatly weakened, I think it is necessary for the people not to drag it out if they think about the people's desire to hear such a sincere apology or expression of regret.

◈ Choi Soo-young: Yes, I see. Let's move on to the next topic. It's about Lee Jae-myung's trial. Following the prosecution's request for two years in prison for violating the Public Official Election Act last time, the prosecution demanded three years in prison for perjury teachers. Anyway, I asked for the maximum sentence according to the Supreme Court's sentencing standard, so how do you rate it, Senator Kim?

☆ Kim Byung-joo: I personally feel very angry. This is a challenge to democracy. I think it's a typical political oppression against our opposition leader. I think they think it's advantageous for them to drop a powerful presidential candidate. The prosecution is actually the guardian of law and justice. Nevertheless, the people are refraining from losing fairness and equity. In fact, it seems that political prosecutors are loyal to President Yoon Suk Yeol as if they are competing with each other this time. It's good to ask for two years, it's the best this time too. I'm doing something ridiculous, saying I'll do this for three years. In fact, it doesn't make sense to sentence the first two-year sentence with a memory problem. This is a perjury teacher who asked for three years. In fact, if you look at the transcript, if you look at the entire 30-minute transcript, you should say as it is, not perjury, but I think this is a form of prosecution that turns into a perjury teacher and asks for three years. It is a typical political prosecution, and I think I will be judged by history.

◈ Choi Soo-young: What do you think, Senator Cho?

★ Cho Hae-jin: There are other crimes, but perjury is a crime of deceiving a judge because the court is very strict about it. The crime of deceiving and misleading the judge to misjudge the trial. Therefore, the crime of violating personal legal interests, the crime of violating social legal interests, and the crime of violating national legal interests when dividing various types of crimes in law, and perjury is a crime of violating national legal interests. The court also dealt with crimes that did not harm specific individuals but undermined the function of the entire national community very strictly. According to the Supreme Court sentencing standards, the perjury was 6 months to 1 year and 6 months. However, in the case of perjury teachers, if they receive the teacher and say that perjury affects the trial and is found not guilty, it is 10 months to 3 years. That's how serious it is, but of course, in this case, some people say that the upper limit of three years makes sense, or more than five years is not enough, but it's an important crime, and he rejected Lee Jae-myung's arrest warrant, and as a result, even warrant judge Yoo Chang-hoon, who let Lee Jae-myung go, said that the charges of perjury are proven. It means that it's proven to be called like this. So, if the judge sees it as such a crime, the same goes for the prosecutor, but if the judge sees it, if there was no perjury, the Gyeonggi governor Lee Jae-myung was falsely accused of being a prosecutor and being convicted of a fine of 1.5 million won for impersonating a prosecutor on a TV debate in 2018, and the first, second, and third trials accepted all the comments. So I acquitted him. Because of this perjury, Kim Jin-sung gave perjury to Choi Chul-ho, a KBS PD, and himself, and an accomplice, as Lee Jae-myung wanted, that Choi Chul-ho was indicted and excluded, and that all the judges, including the first, second, third, and Supreme Court, decided to cover Lee Jae-myung with all of them. I accepted it because I thought it was unfair, but it turned out that it was perjury. As a result, he acquitted himself of being guilty. If he had been convicted there, he would have been deprived of the governor of Gyeonggi Province, failed the presidential election, could not be a member of the National Assembly, and could not be the leader of the party, but he benefited tremendously. Instead, the judge made a mistrial to the Supreme Court, and the state judicial law collapsed. for one perjury So, strictly speaking, even a judge like Yoo Chang-hoon said this was actually guilty, so this has no choice but to be guilty. For that reason, I think the reason why Chairman Lee Jae-myung and the Democratic Party of Korea push the regular session of the National Assembly to impeachment like that is because they are almost certain of his guilt.

☆ Kim Byung-joo: If I say this again, CEO Lee Jae-myung admits 1.5 million won at the debate then. But I feel wronged. That's what happens to everyone. In fact, the prosecutor impersonation was not done by himself, but by someone else, but I was falsely accused. However, at that time, my brother admitted it, but he said it was unfair. Kim Jin-sung, who was recently involved in the perjury controversy, was not in a close relationship with Lee Jae-myung at the time, but that of his competitor and opponent, the former mayor. How do you teach perjury to the other person when you've been in a tight relationship with yourself? So when I see them, they say, "Just do what you're doing." You don't have to talk about things that Secretary Kim hasn't seen in 30 minutes. I write it like it is 12 times in 30 minutes. And the prosecution submits a 7-8-minute transcript to the court to compile this. Then, the prosecution took out the advantage from there. For example, what I took out was that I didn't have to talk about things that my secretary didn't see on the phone that day, and I didn't have to do things that I didn't see, and just do what I remember. So if you listen to this for 30 minutes, don't perjure this. They asked me to tell them as it is, but the prosecution went and turned them into perjury teachers. So I expect the court to make a wise judgment.

★ Cho Hae-jin: It didn't mean anything when he told me what I was while telling me what I was. If you tell me to just say it as it is, I don't have to ask you to say it like this. I don't need to talk about it. You can just talk about what you remember, but isn't it just like this?

☆ Kim Byung-joo: No, actually, it's not that. So this is already a long time ago in 2002 or so. Since it's 20 years ago, I can't remember it well, so I'll send you the data, and there are various materials at that time. You have to look at that and bring back your memories. How do you remember things right 20 years ago? Prosecutors will surely receive three years of the question of memory, the epitome of political prosecution, and perhaps the judgment of history in this form. How can political prosecutors become subservient to politics and do this? I'm so angry at the prosecutors who have to protect fairness and fairness.

★ Cho Hae-jin: There are too many people around Representative Lee Jae-myung who participated in the fear of destroying evidence that is subject to the requirement of issuing an arrest warrant by the court in this way. Someone told me to run away, to run away, and to throw away my cell phone again.

◈ Choi Soo-young: It's not a legal discussion, so I'll move on.

◇ Lee Ik-seon: Yes. It's a matter of financial investment. There was an exclusive report that the Democratic Party leadership formed a consensus in the direction of abolishing the financial investment tax, which is scheduled to be implemented in January next year. Representative Kim Byung-joo knows better than anyone else that the decision was made at a closed Supreme Council meeting held on the 29th.

☆ Kim Byung-joo: Nothing has been decided. We discussed behind closed doors on the 29th, but this will be held on Friday, the day after tomorrow. This does not have to drag on for long by asking for the opinions of our Members at the General Assembly. Because we need to make a decision quickly. So I think we need to make a decision at the general meeting and see the trend. Then, I sympathized with the idea of concluding this quickly after the medical meeting. The Democratic Party of Korea has yet to make a decision on this in the parliamentary assembly rather than in sympathy with others. It is decided by a general meeting. I'm telling you.

◈ Choi Soo-young: However, some said in an interview with Mbn recently that Lee Jae-myung was in favor of postponement, but if we postpone the presidential election in 2027, it will be a question of whether we postpone it again or not, so why don't we just abolish it this time? Since you're a member of our supreme council, I think you know the atmosphere a little bit.

☆ Kim Byung-joo: The majority of our party members agree on the financial investment. But the economy is so bad because of the Yoon Suk Yeol government. In particular, the stock market is so bad. Isn't this the cause of the Yoon Suk Yeol government? So whether it's right to do these things as they are or whether it's right to postpone them. So, some of the people who want to postpone it say, "Why don't we do it when the market situation improves and the economy improves?" However, there is an opinion that this should be done as it is because it does not match the identity of the Democratic Party of Korea, but personally, the economy has deteriorated so much that we have to supplement a lot of the commercial law by reflecting various things. I think we need a comprehensive approach. This has not been decided yet, and the final decision will be made after hearing some opinions from the General Assembly.