[News UP] A collaborative copy of "President's Phone"...What's the Christmas face-to-face survey?

■ Host: Anchor Cho Jin-hyuk and Anchor Kim Jung-jin
■ Starring: Lawyer Son Jeong-hye

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

[Anchor]
Ahead of the Christmas face-to-face survey, the Dong-A Ilbo is looking into the details of President Yoon's mobile phone calls.

[Anchor]
Let's point out what content is included and how helpful it will be to prove the charges with lawyer Son Jung-hye today. Welcome.

[Anchor]
Hello. It is said that what the Korea Communications Standards Institute has secured is not a non-telephone, but the communication details of the general mobile phone that President Yoon usually uses. What content should be considered to be notable here?

[Son Jung-hye]
Even if the mobile phone communication details were secured through a search warrant, it is not actually a recording of the voice of how and with whom the call was made, but it is possible to check when, where, with whom, and even the base station. This is also worth noting. It is very likely that he/she had focused on talking to a specific person before and after martial law, and this particular person is a person who heard President Yoon's instructions before and after martial law or declared martial law in a conspiracy. If you want to confirm the time and details of the call, you need to secure the details of these communications to understand the relationship of the participants in the alleged rebellion. Regarding this, only personal phones are currently available, and regarding non-Phone, the parts of the current call record warrant are under consideration because there is a problem of refusal of various seizure and search with the security chief.

[Anchor]
As you mentioned for a moment, didn't you fail to secure a non-Phone for Commissioner Jo Ji-ho earlier? Do you think it'll be possible this time?

[Son Jung-hye]
In terms of national security, there are parts that require the approval of security and search warrants for non-Chinese phones due to national confidentiality, but a warrant should be issued if only the minimum amount of information necessary for the investigation into rebellion is required without compromising the national security or the nation's obligation to maintain confidentiality at home and abroad. In particular, even if approval from the security agency is required, the security director has a moral responsibility to cooperate in the investigation, so it is reasonable to cooperate when this warrant is issued to reveal the actual truth about this. In this regard, the position of the Presidential Office will also be very important. Because it is to hide the circumstances that they say they will not avoid legal responsibility and do not provide the most important evidence. Since there is room for interpretation like this, it will be helpful to quickly grasp the contents of the non-Phone as soon as possible.

[Anchor]
Isn't it saying that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit should notify President Yoon Suk Yeol of the summons on the 25th? However, if they refuse to comply, there is even an arrest warrant. I'd like to ask you about the prospects, but legally, what kind of strategic choices do you think you'll make?

[Son Jung-hye]
Basically, I think it would be right to think in common sense that the intention to refuse to comply with the arrest has already been made, and there is no attitude to actively respond to the summons, and in fact, is not responding to the summons for the purpose of delaying it. From the point of view of the investigative agency, in this case, it is usually the procedure of the original investigation to obtain an arrest warrant and secure the recruits. However, it is difficult to see it as a justifiable reason to delay the investigation simply because the prosecution has already talked about summoning him once, twice, and more than two weeks since the incident took place. As such, it seems that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or investigative agencies will have to make a decision and consider whether to execute the warrant.

It is not a natural procedure to execute a warrant, and even if it is issued, I don't think we need to actually proceed with execution if we coordinate the schedule with President Yoon. In that respect, an arrest warrant can be issued. However, I think it would be appropriate for President Yoon to voluntarily coordinate his schedule with his lawyers rather than show the execution of the warrant in front of the public at least at the execution stage. Wouldn't it be reasonable to actively cooperate with the investigation as the date of the 25th was designated considering various security guards because there is a possibility that citizens who commute to and from work may face various traffic jams on weekdays? And it is said that the lawyers have not been formed yet, but in fact, there are reports that the lawyers have already formed nearly 10 people according to some reports, so it is a difficult moment to postpone it any longer.

[Anchor]
Isn't the president questioning whether the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can investigate the president's alleged rebellion? Under the current law, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have direct authority to investigate allegations of rebellion, but what do you think about the possibility of refusing to comply with the second summons?

[Son Jung-hye]
There is a possibility that controversy over the subject of the investigation will continue to be raised at the trial stage. For this reason, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is not in a position to investigate the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit alone, but now the police and military prosecutors are also investigating. Therefore, if the police are considered to be the clear investigator of the rebellion, there is no controversy over legality if the police are participating in the investigation and the police are leading the investigation of the suspect. However, since the prosecution is investigating in various ways, the police are investigating it, and the investigation data is vast and scattered, there is a clear voice that the subject of the investigation should be unified in order as a control tower. It remains to be seen whether it will be a Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or whether a special prosecutor will be prepared later to investigate the data under the Special Prosecutor Act in one place.

[Anchor]
When the special prosecutor is launched, is the traffic automatically organized?

[Son Jung-hye]
According to the Special Prosecutor Act, the special prosecutor can request the transmission of records investigated by investigative agencies so far and review all the transmitted records and proceed with the investigation after the rest.

[Anchor]
And now, the first case of successful arrest by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit came out. We are investigating the arrest of Moon Sang-ho, the information commander, but now we see that the regulations on the arrest period are insufficient. So, I think there could be a disagreement about how long you can hold it, what do you think?

[Son Jung-hye]
So, just because there are no regulations doesn't mean there are no regulations, but if there are no regulations, it is a matter that can be interpreted according to the existing regulations, so there is not much controversy about this part. As such, the confusion over the arrest period and such is due to the inability of a single subject to move.

Fortunately, the prosecution is conducting some investigations with the prosecution, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit are in charge of some investigations, and the prosecution, the police, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and the military prosecution should move more actively. If this is not possible, it would be reasonable to operate quickly, whether it is a special prosecutor, a permanent special prosecutor, or a civil war special prosecutor law.

[Anchor]
The investigation into the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not seem to be easy, but isn't the prosecution managing former Minister Kim Yong-hyun's whereabouts and the police managing the related physical evidence? So, some point out that there is a limit to the management of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, what do you think of this part?

[Son Jung-hye]
Because even if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit conducts an investigation, the right to prosecute and the prosecution must maintain the prosecution in the end, so the investigation involving the prosecution, which must be prosecuted, is in principle reasonable. When the controversy over the investigative authority was raised from the beginning, there was a strong voice that the four subjects should conduct a joint investigation together, but since each investigative agency is competing with each other without losing the initiative, the investigation is being conducted in a split state, but if the scope and contents of some investigations have been coordinated, the investigation by the joint investigation agency should be viewed as being open to the prosecution and making great efforts to discuss the possibility. And I think we should adopt a real-time joint investigation method so that it does not interfere with the maintenance of the prosecution, and some of them seem to be doing so.

[Anchor]
President Yoon Suk Yeol, not only does he not comply with the request for attendance, but he is now refusing to serve the documents sent by the Constitutional Court. That's why it's known that the Constitutional Court held a review today and could consider these documents as received, so what are the ways to consider them?

[Son Jeong-hye]
With regard to the provision of considered service, first of all, there are rules regarding electronic delivery. Since the respondent who agreed to electronic delivery has already prepared a clause that considers it a week after not receiving it, or if the address is unknown without being delivered by public service, it may be considered to be delivered after two weeks by posting it in the public information. Another possibility is that they have already sent it by human and mail, but they refused to receive it, not because the address was not right or there was no one there.

In other words, is it reasonable to post a service when even the party who refuses to do so continuously refuses for the purpose of avoidance? Or, because the intention to refuse service is clear, the Constitutional Court has to decide whether to recognize the effect of service and recognize the effect of service. It is the third impeachment proceedings related to the president of the Constitutional Court. In the previous two procedures, there is a little embarrassing aspect because there is a delay problem with delivery or there is no precedent for refusal of delivery or refusal of receipt. The initiative of all proceedings is held by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, delaying the procedure with or without service cannot be postponed indefinitely because it is the aspect of not respecting the authority or procedure of the Constitutional Court. In that respect, even if the process is carried out in recognition of the effectiveness of the service consideration, if sufficient defense opportunities are guaranteed, the problem of procedural defects will not be cured.

[Anchor]
Lawyer, but even if you solve this problem this time, there is no law that should not be repeated in the process in the future. If this is the case, is there any way to block it in advance?

[Son Jung-hye]
In fact, it's not a matter to block in advance, but when a lawyer comes in like this, an agent is formed. It rarely happens that agents refuse to serve. I don't think there will be any refusal of service because the lawyer doesn't have the power to refuse service from the court or from the Constitution, and it's a matter directly related to the ethics of the agent, but there seems to be always room for unusual and other problems. There is no way to block it in advance, and in the end, not being served and not receiving the right to participate in the proceedings is unfavorable to the respondent because it gives up its own rights. I can't defend myself properly because I haven't received the documents from the court. I don't think that's going to happen because it's such a disadvantageous measure.

[Anchor]
The confirmation hearing for three constitutional judges will begin today, and the ruling party is protesting and even discussing a power dispute trial. What's this?

[Son Jung-hye]
First of all, regarding the Constitutional Court, it seems that they are saying that they will make a procedural issue about conducting the confirmation hearing alone. In this regard, the Constitutional Court will eventually decide on a power dispute related to the Constitution. The Constitutional Court has already said that it is legal for the acting president to appoint a constitutional judge like this. If so, it is quite difficult to conclude that judges cannot be appointed due to the issues of personnel hearings and various hearing reports. In a way, it would be correct to interpret that this would be a power dispute in terms of raising political messages, not a power dispute trial raised because it is legally beneficial.

[Anchor]
Lastly, I'll ask you a little bit briefly. It is said that President Yoon Suk Yeol instructed Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok to cut the operating expenses of the National Assembly during martial law, but what variables do you think this will be in the future?

[Son Jung-hye]
This has a lot to do with the credibility of President Yoon's statement. Through public statements and various messages, I first argued to the people that this was not really intended to pose a specific danger, but rather a political pressure on the opposition. However, the intention to prevent the National Assembly from operating in a way that actually arrests or loses its function and does not even give it a budget will eventually be a factor that can further strengthen the purpose of the National Constitution. Therefore, it is important to reveal whether this is true and when and through whom the budget plan was implemented because it can clearly show that the National Assembly's function was actually lost in a detailed way rather than the pressure that the President talked about in his public statement.

[Anchor]
He said that it can be used as evidence that can reveal any intention and activeness.

Let's stop here.

I was with lawyer Son Jung-hye. Thank you.