President Yoon said, "Accepting the National Assembly's demands...To lift martial law"

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Jae-hee
■ Telephone connection: Shin Bong-ki, professor at Kyungpook National University School of Law

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

[Anchor]
Let me take a closer look with the current situation expert. Shin Bong-ki, a professor at Kyungpook National University's Graduate School of Law who served as a public affairs researcher at the Constitutional Court, is connected. Professor, are you out? It was 10:23 p.m. last night that President Yoon declared an emergency decree. After that, they said they would lift it in six hours. You've accepted the National Assembly's request, right?
[Freshman]
That's right. I think that's how you can see it. If so, we will also look at what legal processes are needed to lift martial law, but the president called a Cabinet meeting at around 4:27 a.m. when he declared the lifting of martial law, but the quorum was not met, so we will lift martial law as soon as we come. It feels like the order has changed. Can you also point out the legal process?

[New sewing machine]
First of all, it seems that everyone already knows the process of the National Assembly, which calls for the lifting of martial law. 190 seats were present and 190 seats were passed, and it seems that it was mostly done by the Democratic Party. However, when I checked the article now, some members of the National Assembly seem to have attended, but about 17 to 18 members of the National Assembly seem to have attended. About 30 people, including floor leader Choo Kyung-ho, seemed to have been waiting at the company. But now at around 04:30, the members of the State Council are at the Cabinet meeting. Also, most of the Cabinet meetings have to attend. I think that the president has been waiting for the time because the majority of the attendance was probably not met. And as far as I know, it was announced that the requirements of the State Council were met at around 4:30 p.m., so the requirements for attendance were met and the result of the deliberation was canceled.

[Anchor]
How do you see this part where the president first declared the lifting of martial law through the media and then decided to fill the quorum at the Cabinet meeting?

[New sewing machine]
In any case, as far as this is concerned, the National Assembly has already passed a request for lifting the emergency martial law, so according to Article 11 of the Martial Law, it should be done in accordance with Article 11 (1) of this procedure, which states that martial law should be lifted and announced without delay. However, there is a preliminary procedure to lift martial law, but due to the relationship of Article 11, Paragraphs 1 and 2, which require the lifting and public announcement of martial law through the deliberation process of the State Council, it must be deliberated by the State Council anyway. It seems that they did so immediately because they waited for the procedure. The president's quick expression of his will to lift martial law on the approval of the National Assembly's demand for the lifting of martial law was also postponed because of the deliberation process of the State Council.

[Anchor]
After that, the martial law command was disbanded. The decree No. 1, which was announced along with martial law, also lost its effect. The military authorities explain that the military personnel who were deployed have also returned to their units, but if so, it is now as usual, should I look at it like this?

[New sewing machine]
At least legally, it's back to normal. Therefore, the requirement to lift martial law itself is a judgment that the martial law situation has become a relief in its normal state, and it seems that our society's daily life can now return to normal.

[Anchor]
If so, let's take another look at the process until the emergency martial law is declared. President Yoon cited the opposition's continued motion for impeachment and the passage of the reduced budget as the reason for the declaration of the emergency martial law. Can this be interpreted as a reason for the national emergency?

[New sewing machine]
Didn't you say a lot about that yesterday as the reason for President Yoon's declaration of emergency martial law? For example, the National Assembly is a criminal den. It is also trying to overthrow the system through legislative dictatorship. It's a big budget. It will fight pro-North Korean forces again. And so on, I argued this as the reason for the declaration of emergency martial law, but in this regard, there was actually a question of whether this could be the reason for the declaration of emergency martial law. As I said in an interview yesterday, According to Article 77 (1) of the Korean Constitution and Article 2 (2) of the Martial Law, Article 77 (1) is an emergency martial law, and the interpretation of the national emergency in the interpretation of the emergency equivalent to the wartime incident is similar to the wartime incident. In addition, it is interpreted that the overthrow of the regime, the eradication of pro-North Korean forces, the continued abuse of the budget, and the impeachment will not be applicable to the national emergency equivalent to the wartime incident referred to in Article 77, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. Because you have to interpret it strictly in this area. And the same is true of martial law, whether there is a state of engagement. You're not in a state of engagement, are you? And the social order is extremely disturbed. It's hard to say that these requirements, such as whether the social order is extremely disturbed, have been met. Therefore, this unconstitutional enforcement was carried out. I think I can tell you that I can see it like this.

[Anchor]
The Democratic Party of Korea has been holding an emergency general meeting of lawmakers since 5 a.m. The content is out about this. If President Yoon Suk Yeol does not step down immediately, he said he will start impeachment proceedings. If it is the earliest schedule, I will propose impeachment of the president today, report tomorrow, and vote 24 hours later. I think it's the first time there's ever been an official talk about impeachment at the party level. In your view, do you think this situation is the reason for impeachment?

[New sewing machine]
When it comes to reasons for impeachment, it is actually a serious violation of the constitution and laws. In other words, the seriousness of the violation of the law should be the reason for impeachment, and the requirement for the Constitutional Court to cite impeachment is a serious violation of the law I just mentioned. However, that's the criterion for determining whether to cite impeachment when the impeachment decision is passed and suspended and the Constitutional Court goes to the Constitutional Court. Then, in this case, you're not filing an impeachment motion and voting, are you? As a requirement for the motion, as the Democratic Party claims now, we can be seen as possible reasons.

Because, as I said earlier under martial law, this does not constitute a national emergency equivalent to a wartime incident under martial law, so I took such measures or was not in a state of engagement.Or you did it when the social order was not extremely disturbed. As a requirement for the invocation of emergency martial law, President Yoon mentioned various things as if he was vomiting blood.E is judged to have been an unconstitutional invocation of emergency martial law in terms of whether this is a reason for emergency martial law. Then, of course, it seems that there is no problem with filing an impeachment motion as a subject of impeachment.

[Anchor]
You said that depending on the interpretation, it may be a reason for impeachment, but let me ask you a little more questions about the breaking news that we just heard. If the Democratic Party is the fastest schedule, it said it will propose impeachment of the president today, report it tomorrow, and vote in 24 hours, but can this schedule go according to plan?

[New sewing machine]
Once you file an impeachment motion, I think it's probably within 48 hours of one day from the time you file an impeachment motion, or that's how you vote. So, once you file an impeachment motion, then you vote for impeachment, and the resolution of the plenary session is stipulated in time. Therefore, when an impeachment motion is filed, the process of making a resolution must be done within 48 hours. Because this is fixed, the procedure can proceed like that. Whether it's approved or not will depend quite a bit on the dynamics.

[Anchor]
As I said, the martial law command has been lifted and military troops have returned to their units, and according to the breaking news just now, there seems to have been some clashes between police and rally participants on the road in front of the National Assembly. The rally participants claim that the police pushed out the participants. Police say there are sporadic clashes at the scene regarding vehicle communication during rush hour. Professor, let me ask you one question regarding the collision part. Now, the Democratic Party of Korea has announced that it will consider applying the crime of rebellion in this regard because there was an attempt to arrest opposition leader Lee Jae-myung at dawn. Do you think this is where the crime of rebellion applies?

[New sewing machine]
Could this be a crime of rebellion? First of all, if you want to be accused of rebellion, what you just said is President Yoon's rebellion, right? I think the president's rebellion is difficult for us to expand to that point. However, before the military or police lift the emergency martial law, the military or police will mobilize the military or police to arrest Lee Jae-myung or other politicians in such a way. In this case, there may be controversy over whether or not it is a crime of rebellion, and in such a case, an accomplice of rebellion and such things can be established. As I said, there is also room for interpretation in the question of whether it can be a crime of rebellion. As a result, will the military and police also be accomplices of rebellion? If you want to be an accomplice of rebellion, don't you presuppose rebellion?

[Anchor]
Didn't the Democratic Party argue that the president's declaration of martial law itself does not meet legal requirements and is illegal, so the military and the province following this order are committing illegal acts? How do you like this? Is there a possibility?

[New sewing machine]
So when it comes to illegal activities. But of course, that's a matter of punishment. The military and the police are formed as a military organization, and they are formed as a police organization, and the president is the chief executive of the military. And the police are also in administration because the chief executive is the president. So once the president makes an administrative order to the military or police, of course, the military and police can be put in accordingly, but there is a limit to the principle of the military and police organization law as a top-down relationship.

[Anchor]
I'm asking the professor for a legal interpretation of this situation, but it seems that political awareness is also important. The opposition party and the People's Power Party Chairman Han Dong-hoon mentioned that the declaration of martial law is unconstitutional, but as you said earlier, should I say that they agree that the motion of the impeachment motion and the passage of the budget bill cannot be interpreted as a national emergency?

[New sewing machine]
That's how I see it. Because Article 77 (1) of our Constitution, Article 2 (2) of the Martial Law, and the reason for emergency martial law. As I said earlier, this concept of wartime events or equivalent national emergencies is a basic prerequisite for declaring an emergency, and the key is to how much of the national emergency will be expanded or interpreted. So, in principle, when it comes to emergencies or emergencies, the interpretation itself must be strictly interpreted. It's also a principle in our constitutional academia. However, the national emergency here is a national emergency equivalent to a wartime incident or a wartime incident. That's why we need military forces and these requirements. And when such a special reason arises that it is difficult to take control of administrative and judicial powers, we say this, and here we pray for the overthrow of the system as a legislative dictatorship. It also disturbs legitimate state institutions with budget explosions. When it comes to whether this is the requirement for the declaration of the emergency martial law that I just mentioned, I interpret that as too broad an interpretation. So it's out of range. That's what I say.

[Anchor]
Anyway, the starting point of these various legal controversies is whether the declaration of emergency martial law went through legal procedures. When I looked at Article 2, Paragraph 5 of the Martial Law, it said that in order to determine emergency martial law, it must be deliberated by the State Council. It hasn't been confirmed yet.Ma, do you think that if there was no cabinet meeting before martial law was declared, procedural deficiencies would be established?

[New sewing machine]
In the case of the Cabinet meeting, I don't think I have to go through the Cabinet meeting in terms of procedural defects or whether it has gone through the agenda clearly. Because there are quite a few people who don't know the situation in which ministers and members of the State Council declare this situation itself as an emergency, aren't they reporting right now? Then, I don't think the Cabinet itself took such a direct issue as an agenda, but I think the president probably received a fairly comprehensive delegation or something like that in order to declare emergency martial law, the decision to declare martial law after deliberation by the Cabinet. I think it might have received comprehensive consent, procedurally.

[Anchor]
This procedural justification should be considered in the future. The Korean Bar Association and others responded that they would thoroughly consider the reasons for the constitutional violation of the measure. What's the response in the legal profession?

[New sewing machine]
As we say today, at least whether it falls under the reason for the declaration of emergency martial law, and procedural flaws in this part, such as the deliberation process of the State Council that you asked just a moment ago. So, whether the reason for the declaration of emergency martial law on substantive requirements is reasonable, and whether it was enforced without procedural defects in the procedural process, as the Korean Bar Association claims, should continue to look at this even afterwards.

[Anchor]
There's a breaking news just now. There is news that the authorities have decided to open the stock market normally today. Various indices soared in the declaration of emergency martial law and the stock market was in a state of confusion. There is a breaking news that we have decided to open the stock market normally today. Professor, I'm looking at various legal issues right now, but isn't there a standard for lifting martial law in the constitution? As the opposition party now occupies a majority of the National Assembly members, some point out that the president might not have expected the lifting of the bill immediately. What do you think?

[New sewing machine]
This is probably definitely a preliminary review of the provisions of Article 77.5. But I don't think that was expected when it comes to the fact that 190 people gathered in the plenary session of the National Assembly so quickly. Because right after declaring the emergency martial law, didn't you immediately block everything by the entrance gate of the National Assembly? So, it's already been like that since 10:30 or so, so even if I hurry to follow him, it's 11 or 12 o'clock, but I think the president's office has not properly defended the part that blocks and prevents the gathering of 190 people so quickly.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, it is said that the White House of the United States has not been notified of the declaration of martial law in advance, but is this also problematic?

[New sewing machine]
There is no obligation to give advance notice to the White House of the United States. However, when there is a political reason in advance, it is usually coordinated in advance, but I have some doubts about whether this part actually succeeded when it was actually enforced. Why are you so sloppy? If an emergency martial law is declared, it is necessary to prepare very thoroughly, but the fact that we did not prepare for this type of procedure that will be overturned in a few hours was quite inadequate preparation. If you look at it as one goal for a successful emergency martial law, it was quite unprepared, so I would like to evaluate it.

[Anchor]
There are also calls from political circles that the president should step down on his own, but if he really steps down, will all of these parts, such as the impeachment movement and the application of civil war, be stopped?

[New sewing machine]
There's a law that says that because this is a criminal crime in this part of the crime of rebellion, the so-called successful rebellion is not punished.Ma says that this is ultimately a failed civil war if you see it as a crime of rebellion. Earlier, I didn't tell you whether it's a crime of rebellion or not.If Ma sees this as a crime of rebellion, this is a failed rebellion. Then, the crime of rebellion is a matter that can lead to criminal crimes even after resignation. It's a little different from impeachment. Impeachment is the purpose of impeachment, so if you resign, the impeachment case will be dismissed in itself, and criminal cases like this will continue.

[Anchor]
I see. According to the breaking news just now, the Democratic Party has also announced that if the president does not step down immediately, it will begin impeachment proceedings immediately. That's all for today. I was with Shin Bong-ki, a professor at Kyungpook National University's School of Law, who served as a public affairs researcher at the Constitutional Court. Professor, thank you for talking today.