What about past cases? "Interpretation of the former in both ruling and opposition parties."

[Anchor]
The logic of the people's power is that the acting president cannot appoint a constitutional judge.

However, in the face of former President Park Geun Hye's impeachment, the Democratic Party adopted a similar logic.

It was Kwon Sung-dong, a member of the ruling party, who insisted on the current Democratic Party logic.

Reporter Kim Da-yeon organized it.

[Reporter]
The claim of the people that the acting president cannot appoint a constitutional judge goes back to the impeachment of former President Park Geun Hye.

When the term of Park Han-chul, the then head of the Constitutional Court, was completed during the impeachment trial, interpretations were divided over whether the prime minister could appoint a successor as acting president.

The nine constitutional judges are selected by the president, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and the National Assembly, because former director Park was nominated by the president.

The Democratic Party of Korea, which argued that the acting president should not wield the president's major personnel rights, is now the ruling party's logic.

[Choo Mi-ae / Then representative of the Democratic Party (February 2017): Most constitutional scholars believe that the acting president, not the president, cannot appoint the head of the Constitutional Court or a constitutional judge.]

In the end, the vacancy was not filled until the Moon Jae In government entered.

However, the opposition party did not only oppose the president's personnel appointment.

As the end of the term of Justice Lee Jung-mi's role as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court approached, the opposition expressed concern that the discussion of a successor could lead to a delay in the judgment.

It is noteworthy that the successor was appointed after former President Park's impeachment was finally decided.

This is in line with the current emphasis that the Prime Minister can only act on behalf of the President in the event of a "national uprising" in the power of the people.

Now, it is a simple "suspension of duty," so the appointment of a constitutional judge can certainly be exercised after the impeachment decision is made.

It's not just the Democrats who are paradoxical.

Seven years ago, Kwon Sung-dong, the then head of the impeachment prosecution, claimed that it was okay for the acting president to exercise his right to appoint at the level of stamping.

[Kwon Seong-dong / Chief of the impeachment inquiry at the time (February 2017): Since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has the right to appoint Justice Lee Jung-mi, and the acting President has the right to appoint her formally....]

The interpretation of the former takeover, which was right then and wrong now, seems to fly to both parties as self-imposed.

I'm Kim Dayeon of YTN.