[New Square 2PM] President Yoon's Compulsory Investigation Countdown?...The Constitutional Court's Six-Party Variables for Impeachment Judgment

■ Host: anchor Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Starring: Professor Bang Seung-joo, Graduate School of Law at Hanyang University, lawyer Park Sung-bae

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 2PM] when quoting.

[Anchor]
As the investigation into the emergency martial law situation progresses rapidly, observers say that the summons investigation of the incumbent president has begun to count down. However, the fact that the incumbent president is in status and the decrease in efficiency due to duplicate investigations are pointed out as variables. Let's look at the future proceedings of the Constitutional Court, which launched the impeachment trial of President

Yoon. Today, we will be joined by Bang Seung-joo, a professor of law at Hanyang University, and lawyer Park Sung-bae. Please come in.

Let's start with this part. I told you earlier that President Yoon is not receiving the opinion of the impeachment motion sent by the Constitutional Court through various channels, and he is said to have been denied a request for attendance. What should I do in this case?

[Park Sung-bae]
In fact, refusal to receive a request for attendance is not an essential issue. When investigative agencies summon suspects, they often request attendance by phone rather than by mail. The attendance request is sent only when there is a fear of refusing to comply with the request for attendance over the phone, and an arrest warrant is requested when the attendance is refused even though the attendance request is made three or four times through this procedure. In this case, both the president's office and the president's office appear to be not delivering a request for attendance, but the president is aware that he is requesting attendance even if he does not receive a request for attendance due to media reports or the movement of investigative agencies. If you are aware of such circumstances and there is a concern that you will not comply with your attendance, the investigative agency can apply for an arrest warrant itself, even if it has not delivered the request for attendance directly.

This arrest warrant can be applied again if the suspect is not present or is likely to not attend. However, the bigger problem is not whether or not to serve the request for attendance, but the police cooperation and the prosecution's special department have requested attendance at the same time. From the suspect's point of view, he can plead that neither party will be able to attend due to the burden of a double investigation, and this reason is likely to affect whether or not an arrest warrant is issued in the future.

[Anchor]
It is possible to protest like that, but now, the Public Prosecutor's Office requested attendance on the 18th, that is, tomorrow, and the prosecution requested attendance on the 21st of this Saturday. However, in this case, in addition to the defense, is it possible for President Yoon to attend only one of the two sides, considering the advantages and disadvantages?

[Park Sung-bae]
You can attend only one of them, considering the advantages and disadvantages. These issues themselves are not common in practice. It is not common for the police and the prosecution to ask the same suspect to appear at the same time on the same issue, so it is difficult to discuss it clearly.From the suspect's point of view, Ma is likely to attend a place where he/she believes he/she is advantageous. From President Yoon's point of view, it is much more convenient to attend the special prosecution. The first is his own home, so he is connected with a network without knowing, and the other is this issue, and the prosecution should decide whether to prosecute President Yoon. As the prosecution has to decide whether to prosecute, even if they attend the police cooperation book and receive a suspect's interrogation, they must comply with the request for attendance if the special prosecution department asks for attendance again for a reinforcement investigation. In order to replace it, it can be said that it is advantageous to attend the prosecution once rather than twice immediately.

[Anchor]
President Yoon's lawyers will announce their position in a little while. What position do you expect to reveal?

[Bang Seungju]
Didn't President Yoon issue a statement immediately after the impeachment was passed? Considering the discourse and the second discourse, this declaration of emergency martial law has a highly governmental character. At the same time, I think that this will prepare a pleading with the core point of not constituting the crime of rebellion.

[Anchor] If President
Yoon responds to the summons, it will be the first time in the history of the Constitution that an incumbent president appears as a suspect. Let's take a look at what it was like in the past. First, former President Roh Moo Hyun. After retiring in February 2008, he stayed in Bongha Village in Gimhae, Gyeongsangnam-do, and on April 30 of the following year, he was summoned by the Central Investigation Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on charges of bribery. Before heading to the prosecution office, "I am ashamed of the people. I said, "I'm sorry to disappoint you," and got into the car. I had to stand in front of the photo line of the prosecutor's office in Seocho-dong.

[Anchor]
And in the case of former President Park Geun Hye, the investigation into the state affairs manipulation case began while he was in office, but the prosecution's summons investigation took place after his dismissal. On March 10, 2017, 11 days after the Constitutional Court decided to dismiss him, he was summoned to the prosecution as a former president. At the time, former President Park said, "I am sorry to the people. I said, "I will sincerely investigate."

[Anchor]
And former President Lee Myung Bak was not investigated as president. When he was a presidential candidate, he received a written survey and a visit survey as president-elect. In March 2018, five years after leaving office, he was investigated by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office on charges of embezzlement of DAS funds and bribery of Samsung. So, so far, there has been no case of an incumbent president not only being summoned, but also a door-to-door or written investigation.

[Anchor]
However, there are cases where the wife of the incumbent president was investigated by the prosecution. It's Mrs. Kim Gun-hee. In July, prosecutors investigating Deutsche Motors' stock price manipulation and the receipt of luxury bags were controversial because they investigated Kim privately in a third place, not in the prosecution office, and the prosecution mentioned "reasons for security and stability."

[Anchor]
President Yoon Suk Yeol will probably maintain security, safety, and courtesy as he will remain president until the Constitutional Court's results are released.

The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee is holding a general meeting and conducting pending questions on 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 take a look at the on-site screen together.

[Interview]
Director of Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, did I ask Minister Park Sung-jae, who was sitting next to me last time, to quickly arrest him or not?

[Interview]
You asked me that question.

[Interview]
I'm not arresting you, so don't you think you've replaced all your phones? You're destroying evidence. Why aren't you investigating quickly and making your accomplices destroy evidence, flee and reduce cases? Please investigate quickly. Please investigate quickly.

[Oh Dongwoon]
I see.

[Kim Yongmin]
The chief of the court administration is continuing to talk about the delay of the trial, but the fact is that impeachment of the president is a suspension of the president's duties, so the period of suspension of the presidential office should be minimized to minimize the gap in state affairs, which is why the impeachment trial should be completed quickly. Isn't it another matter to fully guarantee the rights of the accused in criminal trials now? How do you see it?

[Interview]
It can be seen that each of them has its own side.

[Kim Yongmin]
And the ruling party lawmakers keep talking about the delay in the trial while talking about the delay in the trial of Lee Jae-myung. The court should not easily accept that the ruling party is saying it now. Do you know why? Many lawmakers, like Choo Kyung-ho, conspired to carry out this rebellion as accomplices, saying that I can't specify who the ruling party lawmakers are now. That's why we're voting in the National Assembly... listen! Where do accomplices go recklessly? Listen.

So, it prevented us from passing martial law. I kept delaying the plenary session. Such accomplices now have ruling party lawmakers. Do you know what those ruling party members are trying to do? I was going to arrest the judge right away. I was trying to arrest the judge who acquitted me. So, the court should not answer so generously to the ruling party lawmaker's remarks because it is a quick trial, but take it as a very serious matter.

[Cheondaeyeop]
We always follow the laws and principles, regardless of ruling or opposition parties.

[Kim Yongmin]
I'm not distinguishing between the ruling party and the opposition party, but I'm telling you not to easily accept what accomplices in the rebellion are saying now. And then... I'm not saying this to the members who voted for it. I respect and appreciate the lawmakers who voted in favor, but don't you know that floor leader Choo Kyung-ho dragged his feet at the time? Choo Kyung-ho will say that we will surely punish him as an accomplice in the civil war. And did you come out as the head of the Department of Justice's correctional headquarters? Come to the front. It's my time right now. Listen. Listen if you don't want to admit your accomplice in a civil war. Head of the Correctional Services Department, listen. Now. Listen to how many bad things you did. Shortly after martial law was declared on December 3rd, the Ministry of Justice's correctional headquarters issued an official letter to each detention center. Did you issue an official letter?

[Interview]
Yes.

[Kim Yongmin]
What did you say?

[Interview]
Measures to be observed in emergency situations Thoroughly manage the number of sentences.

[Kim Yongmin]
What time did you get off?

[Interview]
The first time I got off it was around 11:25...

[Kim Yongmin]
But I didn't just send an official letter to that extent, but I said it like this. Figure out the living room in case an MP is brought in. There was an order like this, and I'm talking after receiving a report. In fact, it is difficult for the security department staff to check it in person, so the living room manager in charge of designating the living room suddenly went to work around 12 o'clock and found out the room living alone. There's this fact. You don't have one?

[Interview]
There's no such thing.

[Kim Yongmin]
Tell me straight.

[Interview]
There's no such thing.

[Kim Yongmin]
It's going to be revealed by an investigation later. All of your men reported it. Listen to me! Listen to me. In this way, I received a report that I was instructed to find out the number and location of the rooms living alone in preparation for the lawmakers being brought here. Is there such a fact or not?

[Interview]
does not exist.

[Kim Yongmin]
I'll investigate that later. And did you have a video conference after that?

[Interview]
The video conference was held for 10 minutes from 1:09.

[Kim Yongmin]
Who did you do it with?

[Interview]
It was targeted at heads of correctional institutions nationwide.

[Kim Yongmin]
Who did it? Did the head of the correctional center do it? What did you talk about?

[Interview]
As I said earlier, it is an emergency, so you have to manage your sentence thoroughly, then you have to establish service discipline, and this was mainly done, but that time was already after the National Assembly passed the resolution to lift the emergency martial law.

[Kim Yongmin]
When the official letter was issued around 11 o'clock, it seemed that the executives of Grade 5 or higher were told to wait for emergency.

[Interview]
Around 12:20 a.m., a fifth-class colonel, whether it's the military or the police, and seeing that there are emergency measures for these people.

[Kim Yongmin]
Please show me the official document that the Ministry of Justice told me to stand by at 11 o'clock for executives of Grade 5 or higher.

[Interview]
I think they said it was level 5 or higher after 12 o'clock.

[Kim Yong-min]
I already sent an official letter like this around 11 o'clock. Of course, we reconstructed this, but we secured an official document.

[Interview]
It's not around 11 o'clock, but I've known it since then.

[Kim Yongmin]
Then why did you tell me to wait for civil servants of Grade 5 or higher?

[Interview]
This is not an emergency call, but it means to wait according to our emergency manual.

[Kim Yongmin]
I told you to wait above level 5, but why did you have the living room staff of level 6 and 7 rush to work and check if they have single rooms or not?

[Interview]
There's no such thing.

[Kim Yongmin]
Didn't you order it yourself?

[Interview]
I never instructed you.

[Kim Yongmin]
Then the head of the detention center must have ordered it.

[Interview]
I don't know about that, but I didn't order it. Don't you know if you did

[Kim Yongmin]
?

[Interview]
That doesn't happen.

[Kim Yongmin]
Then the head of the detention center goes crazy that night...

[Interview]
Which detention center are you referring to?

[Kim Yongmin]
Aren't you trying to find the informant? I won't talk about that. The head of the detention center was the only one who went crazy and ordered to look for a solitary cell because lawmakers could catch him.

[Interview]
Who knows if a member of the National Assembly is caught or not, there is no situation.

[Kim Yongmin]
without the directions of one's superiors Why don't you know at that time? The minister already knew everything, and the president said he would catch the lawmakers now.

[Interview]
I don't have that at all. I can tell you for sure. There's no such thing.

[Chairman]
As chairman of the committee, I would like to say something at the level of order in the conference room. Gentleman to ask here is not an individual question. As a member of the National Assembly of the constitutional institution, please refrain from calling you because I am asking the institution. You can't write it like that. And I also say to Members of the People's Power. When the remarks begin, the chairman should not cut off the remarks as much as possible. In situations where it is physically impossible, I cut off my remarks and give you the right to speak again, but as I have repeatedly said, if I don't like the other lawmaker's remarks, I have told the chairman to listen first and then apply for a proceeding statement. So when you ask a question, listening and yelling and interfering with the question like this are also detrimental to maintaining order. So please refer to that. Go ahead.

[Cho Bae-sook]
I've always said this while proceeding with our Judiciary Committee, but I think there is a very problem with Representative Kim Yong-min's remarks. As for declaring martial law, in fact, as the same ruling party, no one really thinks it's wrong, and that's good. But beyond that, he referred to all of our lawmakers as accomplices of rebellion by talking about rebellion now. I think that's going too far. When there is solid evidence, there is no evidence and this is wrong, so they are accomplices of the same civil war because they are in the same group? Then, as a member of this National Assembly, I think it's a little out of character and I need to be careful. In this regard, I hope you will definitely cancel this comment and apologize. That's about it.

[Chairman]
I will answer the proceeding statement because I made the proceeding statement. I'm answering the Democratic Party lawmakers right now. Could you please be quiet?

[Anchor]
You saw the screen of the urgent questionnaire being held at the National Assembly Judiciary Committee. Let's break the news for a while and continue to see the situation on the spot. President Yoon's lawyers have been holding a briefing since 2 p.m. There was a mention that it is difficult to tell whether the prosecution will appear this week if I tell you about the related information. Seok Dong-hyun, former secretary-general of the Advisory Council for Democratic Peace and Unification, said that those who decided to help President Yoon are coordinating.

And we will prepare by dividing the response to the impeachment trial and the investigation, he said. As previously reported, President Yoon's lawyers were once again informed that Kim Hong-il, former chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, and Yoon Gap-geun, former chief prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, joined. It is reported that the appointment of the lawyers has not yet been submitted.

Then I'll ask the lawyer about this. What was said by President Yoon's lawyers and whether he was summoned by the prosecution. There was a saying that it is difficult to tell you whether to summon this week, but what position are you organizing now?

[Park Sung-bae]
First of all, the fact that they are forming a defense team itself is read as an intention to comply with the summons. However, it seems to be protesting that it is inappropriate to issue an arrest warrant at the same time as it is read to the effect that it is not enough for the time to reduce the time to catch it within this week. Furthermore, there is a separate lawyer to respond to the investigation stage and a separate lawyer to respond to the impeachment proceedings. Each lawyer with specialized fields will be appointed and prepared separately, and the future countermeasures for the president's various legal issues are of public interest, so the lawyers seem to have announced them on behalf of them. Kim Hong-il, former chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, and Yoon Gap-geun, former head of the Daegu High Prosecutors' Office, joined the lawyers, but it is not a normal case, but a decisive case that will determine his fate, so it is presumed that he appointed a lawyer who he usually believes in.

[Anchor]
Although we have appointed the most trusted lawyers, there is also news that it is very difficult to set up a defense team. So there must be some people who refuse. So, did the burden on too big an issue work? What do you think, professor?

[Bang Seungju]
Well, the pressure was on because it was such a big event. So this itself declared an emergency martial law and tried to enter the National Assembly and seize servers by occupying the NEC. I think all of these things are unprecedented for the Constitution. The reason why I think it's an unprecedented constitutional incident is because before that, when soldiers endured a military coup, don't we call it a coup? It's already been 37 years since we've been democratized and we've been operating the 1987 Constitution. Many of the young people who are participating in the candlelight demonstration in front of Yeouido are people who have lived only in democracy. Those are people who don't really know what martial law is. However, attempts to fundamentally block martial law troops from entering the National Assembly and passing a resolution to lift the declaration of martial law by the National Assembly and all of these constitute, so to speak, civil war, riots by soldiers, and the maximum sentence for rebellion is life imprisonment, life imprisonment, and death penalty.

So, when the emergency martial law was declared on December 3, wasn't all the events broadcasted on TV by the media? It was broadcasted, so to speak. So, it's not easy to deny these things on the respondent's side and the suspect's side. as the facts are already so obvious In this situation, it is not easy to set up a defense team. How and how to defend these things. Of course, those who have been in acquaintances with the president and have been related to work will try to help. They will also need their defense in order to unexpectedly defend the president's personal human rights violations in the course of the investigation by dividing the investigation and impeachment of their own. And the president is also now preparing to defend himself with that logic that this is the president's best form of governance, so lawyers in this impeachment trial are likely to prepare arguments in the same way.

[Anchor]
And in a brief briefing by the lawyers just now, there was a saying that President Yoon will express his position in the impeachment court with his conviction, is President Yoon obligated to attend the trial?

[Park Sung-bae]
That's not true. In the case of an impeachment trial, of course, the parties are notified by designating a date. However, if you do not attend on that date, the Constitutional Court may designate the next date and proceed with the trial without attending on that date.

[Anchor]
I see. Then, let's go back to the National Assembly, where the pending questions of the Judiciary Committee are ongoing.

[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.

[Anchor]
I saw the situation of the National Assembly Judiciary Committee. I'll give you a brief break news. Breaking news has been reported that the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act and the First Lady Kim's Special Prosecutor Act have been transferred to the government. The so-called "insurrection independent counsel law" and the fourth Kim Gun-hee independent counsel law, which passed the plenary session of the National Assembly on the 12th, were transferred to the government a little while ago. When transferred to the government, a Cabinet meeting will be held to discuss how to deal with this law. In response, the Democratic Party of Korea warned Acting President Han Deok-soo not to exercise his veto power, including controversial bills such as the Grain Management Act.

Acting President Han Deok-soo has suspended the introduction of a request for reconsideration on six bills handled by the opposition alone, including the Grain Act. Attention is focusing on whether to veto the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act and the Special Prosecutor's Act on Kim Gun-hee. And there's one more breaking news. I gave you a brief message earlier. Lawyers for Yoon Suk Yeol's president made a statement today. First of all, there was a saying that it was difficult to tell you about the request for a summons to the prosecution this week. President Yoon is determined to follow the set legal procedures. And since there is a simultaneous subpoena of the prosecution and the cooperation copy, we will make a position after review. In addition, there were comments that adjustments were needed regarding the overlapping confusion of investigative agencies.

[Anchor]
He also said that President Yoon will express his position in the impeachment court. He also said that it is impossible for the investigation process and the impeachment trial to proceed at the same time, and that adjustments need to be made on this part. He also said he would respond to the problem of overlapping investigative agencies. I think I should ask the professor a question about this. a combination of an investigation and an impeachment trial President Yoon's lawyers have said that it is impossible to proceed simultaneously on this part. Is that impossible? What is the situation?

[Bang Seungju]
It's not impossible. Simultaneous progress is possible. And if you look at Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Act there, the Constitutional Court is allowed to decide at its discretion whether to suspend the impeachment trial in the event of criminal proceedings, not necessarily. In light of the seriousness of the issue, the investigation into whether the crime of rebellion is constituted is important, but I think this is a much more important issue, whether it is necessary to clearly confirm the issue of the president's suspension of authority and paralyze the constitutional order in the impeachment process, and to dismiss the president's position if necessary.

Therefore, it seems that the Constitutional Court will not suspend the impeachment trial process first. Such cases were the same during the impeachment trial of former President Park Geun Hye. So, in the end, whether it constitutes a criminal crime, this is another matter, so regardless of whether it constitutes a rebellion, did it seriously violate the Constitution and laws in the execution of the president's duties? The question of whether the constitution has been violated here is not a violation of the constitution only if the crime of rebellion is constituted.

Article 77 of the Constitution clearly stipulates the requirement to declare emergency martial law at the time, regardless of whether or not the crime of rebellion is constituted, right? Special measures can only be taken by the administration or the judiciary to deal with such emergencies in the event of a war, incident or equivalent emergency. Then, supplementary measures are needed, and the Constitutional Court is expected to judge the issue independently because such acts of recklessly entering the National Assembly and almost paralyzing the function of constitutional institutions can constitute a reason for impeachment regardless of whether such rebellion is established.

[Anchor]
Breaking news just came in about the investigation situation related to the emergency martial law situation. There was a video of the police's seizure and search of the president's safe house, and news came out that the court dismissed it. It is said that President Yoon met with the police chief and others at the safe house before martial law. It was reported that the president delivered a command letter to the media and other dominant agencies in the

house, but it was considered as key evidence to reveal the plot of martial law in relation to the safe house meeting, but news came a little while ago that the court dismissed the seizure and search warrant for the safe house.

I'll ask my lawyer about this. The search and seizure warrant for the president's safe house was rejected, and on what basis did you make that judgment?

[Park Sung-bae]
First of all, the reason for the dismissal was that the police first obtained a search warrant from the court last time and launched a search and seizure of the presidential office, but in the end, they ended up only receiving some voluntary submissions. Military matters and matters requiring confidentiality can be seized and searched only with the consent of the person in charge, and in light of this situation, the court seems to have judged that if the warrant cannot be executed anyway without further clear evidence, it should be dismissed. However, it may be the place where the key evidence to reveal the circumstances of the martial law plot is located. However, whether the allegation of this case is proved only when the safe house raid is conducted, that part is seen as a matter of another level. In this case, the main issue is whether the issuance of emergency martial law constitutes a rebellion, but due to the nature of the case, there is considerably more human evidence than physical evidence and relatively little physical evidence.

However, in any case, that is, even if it is a case with personal evidence as the main evidence, few cases have no physical evidence at all. In this case, it also dictates the list of members of the National Assembly to be arrested.If Eden was instructed to include an agency in advance or block it, the person who received the instruction could take notes even if they did not seize and search the house, and even if the person who received the instruction did not take notes immediately, someone might have taken notes in the process of ordering his subordinates, and in the process of giving orders. The question may arise whether the memo was written after death, but if it is written in an inoperable format, such as a daily work log, it is given sufficient credibility. Perhaps some memos may be written and abandoned, and memos may be confirmed as physical evidence during the investigation, so if more statements of those involved are added to such memos, a search warrant for safe houses is likely to be issued in the end.

[Anchor]
I'm still interested in whether President Yoon will respond to the summons. Attention is now focusing on whether it will be the first time in the constitutional history that a sitting president is summoned. By the way, the debate continues over whether acting President Han Deok-soo can appoint a constitutional judge with three vacancies, right?

However, after former President Park Geun-hye was dismissed in 2017, Acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn was appointed as a constitutional judge. Let's take a look at the screen at that time. This is the scene where former Acting President Hwang

appoints a new constitutional judge at the time, Lee Sun-ae. After being appointed as the successor of Judge Lee Jung-mi, who read the citation of former President Park Geun Hye's impeachment trial, he received a letter of appointment of Acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn. At the time, the ruling and opposition parties' positions on the appointment of the acting constitutional judge were 180 degrees different from now.

While the ruling Saenuri Party, the predecessor of the people's power, and the Democratic Party of Korea, "cannot be appointed," Hwang Kyo-ahn, the acting president, finally pushed ahead with the appointment. However, the difference between then and now is that in 2017, it was after the final decision of impeachment, and that the Constitutional Judge Lee Sun-ae, who was appointed at the time, was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[Anchor]
The opinions of the ruling and opposition parties now, will the acting president be able to appoint a constitutional judge? You just saw it through the anchor report. How is this part organized in the Constitution?

[Bang Seungju]
The Constitution says nothing about this. Therefore, if the president can no longer execute his/her duties due to a vacancy or accident, the Prime Minister and the State Council member prescribed by law can act on behalf of this authority. In that case, the extent to which the acting president can perform the president's authority is no different from what is left to the theory so far. And because there was the impeachment trial of former President Park Geun Hye last time, we can consider the appointment of various acting judges at that time as precedents, but I personally think that the appointment of the three constitutional judges this time can be appointed by the acting president.

The reason why it can be seen is that the National Assembly is responsible for these three people. It's up to the National Assembly. So if you look at the Constitution, the appointment of three of the nine justices is up to the election of the National Assembly, and the rest is up to the nomination of the chief justice, the three. Since the three are the president's responsibility, it is also the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that former Acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn appointed Lee Sun-hoe last time. So it can be understood that his fulfillment of that authority was not in a formative sense, but only an act of formality. Likewise, to appoint the three elected by the National Assembly by Prime Minister Han Deok-soo is simply an act of formality.

And if you say you're not impeached, then the question is whether or not the president of Yoon Suk Yeol should appoint these people. Even then, you have to make an appointment. If you look at Article 111 (3) of the Constitution, three people appointed by the President, three people elected by the National Assembly, and three people nominated by the Supreme Court. Since it is said that it is appointed like this, it can be seen as a mandatory regulation.

[Anchor]
I'm also curious about your opinion. He said that it is possible for the acting authority to appoint the three constitutional judges because the National Assembly is the main body for recommendation. What do you think?

[Park Sung-bae]
It is seen as an issue that can be appointed by the acting president. In the event of a presidential vacancy or accident, the acting president is established, and the vacancy refers to the death, resignation, or dismissal by a decision of the Constitutional Court, and the accident refers to the case of a new person, a sick person, or a suspension of his/her duties due to an impeachment decision. In the event of a vacancy, the president's position is completely vacant, so it should only be maintained as it is. No, the majority opinion of constitutional academia is that in the event of an accident, the status quo should be maintained because of conflicting opinions that it is possible to change the status quo. However, the measure of appointing a constitutional judge seems to be nothing more than maintaining the status quo.

In particular, the fact that constitutional judges should be composed of a nine-member system is in accordance with the Constitution. It seems difficult to say that the procedure for healing unconstitutional and illegal conditions goes beyond maintaining the status quo. In addition, the president appoints all nine constitutional judges, but only three are directly appointed, three elected by the National Assembly, and three nominated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It seems to be appropriate to appoint the three people elected by the National Assembly because it is possible to say that this procedure is only a formality and a measure to maintain the status quo.

[Anchor]
I see. So far, I've pointed out issues with Bang Seung-joo, a professor at Hanyang University's Graduate School of Law, and lawyer Park Sung-bae. Thank you both.