[New Square 10] Yoon has been "refusing to take it" for a week...What is the position of the Constitutional Court?

Yoon Denies Impeachment Documents...Constitutional Court announces its position on the 'delivered matter'

Constitutional Court is considering a plan to consider it legally served

Constitutional Court to Send Judgment Documents...President Yoon Refuses to Serve

From the start of the trial, 'squeak'...Constitutional Court is considering countermeasures

Constitutional Court considers 'consideration of delivery'...Concerns over additional delays in the absence of the final position announced today

'Inadequate Composition of Agents'

■ Host: Anchor Park Seok-won and anchor Lee Se-na
■ Starring: Lawyer Yoon Ki-chan

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 10AM] when quoting.

[Anchor]
The Constitutional Court will present its position today as President Yoon continues to refuse to receive documents for the impeachment trial.

[Anchor]
Let's take a look at the details with lawyer Yoon Ki-chan and lawyer Seol Ju-wan.

[Anchor]
The impeachment trial documents that President Yoon is not receiving. The Constitutional Court considers it a service, and it is said that it will decide whether or not to do so, what do you think will happen?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I don't think it's easy to judge like this because it's considered to be served. First of all, the delivery of personnel was served to the administrator, but it is not confirmed whether it was served to the person concerned anyway. I don't think the mail delivery has been delivered. Then there is electronic delivery, which was delivered electronically, but it is not confirmed whether it was delivered directly to President Yoon. Among them, there are regulations regarding electronic delivery as well as the method of electronic delivery, but this part applies only when the parties agree to electronic delivery. Since there was no party consent procedure, this part cannot be used as the basis for consideration. If so, the Constitutional Court will probably make a fundamental statement that it will serve again. For example, in the end, I think we should go to the official service.

There is a kindergarten delivery service, but it is a supplementary delivery method. Childhood delivery is something that can be put in place if the person or family refuses to receive it. In case of refusal of due receipt. If so, does it become a requirement for kindergarten delivery when the employee refuses? For example, it is sometimes difficult for the Constitutional Court to predict that there is no justifiable reason because the security agency employee claims that I do not have such authority and that it is not within the scope of my work. If so, it's hard to deliver baby food. Shipment service that can be done after kindergarten service. If I send it, it's hard to regard it as being delivered. In the end, service by public notice. I have no choice but to use it this way and it takes about two weeks.

[Anchor]
If it's public service...

[Yoon Ki-chan]
It's published in the official gazette. If it is posted on the bulletin board and posted, it is considered to be effective after a certain period of time. I think we have no choice but to use that method.

[Anchor]
In the past, former President Roh Moo Hyun received the documents the day after the impeachment motion was passed, and former President Park Geun Hye received them on the same day. Then, it is almost unusual to refuse to receive them like this.

[Seol Joo-wan]
It's also very unusual in the case of normal events. Usually, it is normal to check by yourself through service and then proceed with the procedure, but as lawyer Yoon explained well earlier, such as kindergarten service and public service service are exceptional systems. And it's an exceptional system used when you don't know where the respondent is, or when he or she is missing, and all Koreans know where the president is. However, I think that continuing to use such tricks is disadvantageous to you, and as a president, whether you have the will to protect the law as a president in terms of the spirit of compliance.

[Anchor]
What would happen if we were to count the benefits? What do you think is the intention?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I don't see any direct impact.Ma told the court that this person is avoiding something because he is at a disadvantage. If you think it's advantageous, you don't shy away from it. I'm going to hurry up and say I'll get the impeachment decision dismissed, and I'll reveal my innocence. I will not give a good impression to the court because President Yoon Suk Yeol is consistently avoiding the actions he shows now, contrary to the words that he will stand up to in the fourth or second discourse.

[Anchor]
The preparation date for the first hearing of the impeachment trial is coming on the 27th, that is, four days away, so will it not interfere with this?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
Perhaps the first hearing date is difficult to proceed as scheduled in this state. It's the time to prepare for the defense. The preparation date is a place where both parties gather to organize issues and coordinate what evidence to apply for. If so, it is meaningless to prepare a pleading date when one party does not attend. The issue is sorted out by the life judge. Since TF is doing it, TF also collects evidence. The process is ongoing. However, it is difficult to proceed as it is because it is a place to exchange opinions on what both parties think about this evidence relationship.

And the other thing is that President Yoon may have difficulty forming a delegation of representatives. So, isn't it necessary to extend the related period a little longer? This is not for the purpose of delaying the judgment, but for one's own benefit, trying to faithfully judge. So, regardless of the president's position, personal Yoon Suk Yeol is for his own benefit. Because after service, they participate in the judgment process, and there are various supplementary provisions for service. So I think there is a high possibility that the trial will be delayed until the public notice is sent.

[Anchor]
The most important thing is whether to appoint the remaining three constitutional judges. The confirmation hearing is being held on the spot. I'll explain it to you while looking at the on-site screen. I'm candidate Ma Eunhyuk right now. You are watching the confirmation hearing of candidate Ma Eun-hyuk among the opposition-recommended candidates Jeong Gye-seon and Ma Eun-hyuk.

[Anchor]
The opposition party says it will adopt the report immediately and process the appointment motion at the plenary session by the 27th at the latest. However, the power of the people is confronting that appointment itself is impossible.

[Anchor]
As you can see, there are a lot of seats available. The ruling party has decided not to participate at all, but they say that the special committee's confirmation hearing process can be questioned in the future. How do you look at it?

[Seol Joo-wan]
The people's power says they will claim a power dispute in this regard.I don't think it's actually subject to a power dispute. I think they're out of it. No one has ruled it out. And as a constitutional institution, it is a personnel hearing that is legally held in accordance with the regulations of the personnel hearing. In addition, I think members of the People's Power should come in. It is up to acting Han Deok-soo to decide whether to appoint him in this regard, but it is possible for the National Assembly to recommend these parts. Then, if the people's power is removed by themselves during the recommendation process, I think it will be difficult to raise an objection like this, saying that it is an unconstitutional procedure later on.

In that sense, I don't know how Prime Minister Han Deok-soo will decide, but I think we should make an appointment in conclusion. So, if you look at past cases, the Constitutional Court is formed based on the separation of powers. So there's the president's share, the National Assembly's share, and the judiciary's share. However, in the past, the president's appointment was only a vital procedure for the recommendation of other organizations, not for the president's recommendation. If so, I think it would be right for Acting President Han Deok-soo to appoint the three people who are in charge of the National Assembly this time if the National Assembly recommends them.

[Anchor]
You saw the situation at the National Assembly, and confirmation hearings will be held today for Ma Eun-hyuk, a political candidate recommended by the opposition party, and Cho Han-chang, a candidate recommended by the ruling party, tomorrow. The power of the people continues to claim that acting Han Deok-soo cannot appoint a constitutional judge, what do you think, lawyer?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
Eight years ago, the purpose of the argument was contradictory. At that time, acting Hwang Kyo-ahn was recommended by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Constitutional Judge Lee Jung-mi. The term ends on March 13th, so let's proceed with the recommendation process before that. When the National Assembly asked to proceed with the same hearing process, the Democratic Party argued at the time that the acting president could not do this in an accident state. So, if there was a decision by the Constitutional Court and it became a vacancy, it was said that it was possible, so it actually proceeded that way. Of course, at the time, the power of the people argued against it. Let's say that what each party argues against each other according to political advantages and disadvantages has actually gone on like that in reality. It was actually carried out so that the appointment could only be made while in a vacancy. That's why we should respect that practice, and the other thing is that in relation to the special committee on the special committee on the inspection, Rep. Jeong Je-sik was originally appointed as the chairman of the special committee on the inspection. However, when Rep. Jeong Je-sik said he would not proceed, he arbitrarily changed the chairman of the special committee on personnel affairs. I think that also violated the majority vote under the Constitution and the National Assembly Act. Another thing is that the National Assembly should not recommend work that cannot be appointed. I think he missed the hearing to argue for consistency of logic.

[Anchor]
With the constitutional documents still not being served, the co-operation agency asked President Yoon to attend on Christmas Day. What will be your attendance?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I don't think he will attend if the president is in the position of the current president. In particular, the appointment of lawyers is not a requirement, so it is a general principle for an individual to go alone and receive an investigation. You don't have to have a lawyer, but you have to have a lawyer because you're the president? You need lawyers? I don't think so. Representatively, Kim Hong-il, the former chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, and all of these people are lawyers. You two can go. However, I don't know how many lawyers you will set up, but the fact that you are refusing to investigate the case under the excuse of the lawyers is that if you can't attend tomorrow and the 25th the day after tomorrow, I think if this year passes, I will start a forced investigation from January next year.

[Anchor]
He expected that he would not attend the day after tomorrow and that an arrest warrant would be issued, that is, an arrest warrant request would be made next year. What do you think?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
From the perspective of the Joint Investigation Headquarters, that is, the police, I think they originally considered an arrest warrant. That's why I told you to hand over the case by the 18th in the middle. I told them to transfer, but the prosecution moved on the 18th. The police did it in advance. I think it's because of the warrant application right. The president's case was handed over in advance to meet the requirements of the right to apply for an arrest warrant. They don't have the right to apply for personal compulsory investigation to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. The forced search and seizure of objects have this root justification for the police to apply to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but according to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, only the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can apply for personal warrants, arrest warrants, or arrest warrants, and cannot be requested by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit after receiving a request from the police. That's why I think the police handed over the case in advance.

If so, it is a summons that actively considers the arrest warrant, I see it like this. There are claims to this effect that it is intended to neutralize the security agency's claims by emptying the building on the 25th, but personally, I don't think I summoned him because I thought it would come out on the 25th. Perhaps if you fail to comply with the request for attendance without a legitimate request for two or three times, which meets the requirements, the warrant request becomes invalid. That's why I think it's a formality. Because I don't think he's ready to interrogate the suspect. The prosecution has handed over the actual case yet, but it has not been confirmed whether the attached documents have been handed over yet. We need to take over the attached documents and review them to create an interrogation situation, but is it that long? From the two requirements, I think that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is a procedure that meets the procedural requirements for applying for an arrest warrant.

If so, there is a high possibility that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will make a claim. But there are two variables. The first is that the president, whether it's a lawyer or not, can come forward before the 25th. For this reason, I can't go this time and I can go next time. If this happens, you can't claim a warrant. Second, when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit requests a warrant to the court, it has to refuse to summon without justifiable reasons, but there is no lawyer for the president. It's very likely that asking for time to form an attorney would be a legitimate reason. If so, that part is also something that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit should consider, so if an arrest warrant is applied and rejected, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is a competition. Rather, there is room for criticism that it is institutional egoism. If so, considering such a number of things, I don't think he will ask for a warrant just because he refused to comply with the second summons this time, and I think he will go to the third round. That's what I think.

[Anchor]
Even if it goes to the third round, isn't there a security issue for President Yoon, who maintains his position? What do you think of the observations that conflict with the security service is bound to arise?

[Seol Joo-wan]
If an arrest warrant is issued by the court, it would be very burdensome for the security service to interfere with the execution of the warrant issued by the court. I think the security service will cooperate with the warrant issued by the court, whether it is an arrest warrant or an arrest warrant.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
But there's actually room for judgment. Because I'm issuing an arrest warrant for subpoena. So there's room for the bodyguard to stop the summons. Because there is a great possibility that it will not interfere with the execution of public affairs because if you don't threaten violence, you won't interfere with the execution of public affairs. If the security service stops it, it won't interfere with the execution of public affairs. Therefore, in that case, from the perspective of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, there is no room to consider the preliminary arrest warrant. Without requesting an arrest warrant, without requesting it. However, would it be right to seek an arrest warrant or an arrest warrant if the incumbent president does not respond to the summons just because he or she has not been appointed as a lawyer for various legitimate reasons? I think I'm going to have a fundamental concern about this.

[Anchor]
In addition, the police special team said it secured the phone call details of President Yoon, so what can we know from this?

[Seol Joo-wan]
Who did you talk to at the time? It's not the content, it's the details. It's just a record of who you talked to at the time. However, I think it can be a clue to reveal who the plot was before and after martial law. They are considering requesting a warrant for non-Phone, but I think they can match who they talked to at the time about using a regular cell phone and the order of simulation in time. If so, I think the discovery of regular phone records about the president will play a very important role in temporally constructing the case in this case.

[Anchor]
Isn't it that President Yoon gave a document containing instructions to Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok at a Cabinet meeting held before declaring martial law? According to this, there was also a content such as cutting the operating expenses of the National Assembly and making a budget for the operation of the emergency martial law legislature. How should we look at this situation?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
That situation is different under martial law. What makes the National Assembly impossible. It is unlikely that the impossibility of the power of the National Assembly, a constitutional institution, will be linked immediately. For example hang up, never give away, parliament will be gone. If you had this kind of note, it was trying to neutralize the exercise of parliamentary power. But I told you to squeeze it again. If the Democratic Party of Korea cut KRW 410 million in the government's budget, it was not intended to make it impossible for the government to exercise its power. Reorganize it to suit the function of the National Assembly in that way, because this purpose was followed by that. Of course, it is not appropriate that you mentioned the budget. This is not the exercise of power of the National Assembly because it is the exercise of power of the government, the budget. The National Assembly budget is made by the government. That's why it's under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economy and Finance because it's related to the government's exercise of power. So I don't think it will serve as evidence to prove that the National Assembly intended to make it impossible to exercise its powers right away.

[Anchor]
And it is said that the police internally concluded that there was a defect in the Cabinet meeting held just before martial law was declared. How does this affect the impeachment trial?

[Seol Joo-wan]
You can check whether it is procedurally legal or not. According to what is said now, Prime Minister Han Deok-soo, other ministers, and Agriculture Minister Song Mi-ryeong also said at the National Assembly that it could not be regarded as a Cabinet meeting. It seems that such a part has been judged. It turns out that it is illegal to have such a procedural defect in itself, which is unconstitutional. How much illegality will be when it is judged later. Do you think this will be a serious reason for illegality that makes it impossible for the president to serve as president? I think it's already a premise that it's illegal. So I think it will be a criterion for judging the strength and importance of whether or not you can maintain the presidency.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
There's something I don't understand about this. Because the Constitutional Court is going to judge. Whether the requirements for declaring martial law have been met. It's one of the procedural requirements. Whether there was actually a Cabinet meeting. Whether there was a parliamentary procedure. These are important factors in determining whether the president's martial law declaration is a violation of the Constitution in the Constitutional Court. Whether it's a serious violation is a pleading matter. However, from the police's point of view, this has nothing to do with the requirements for establishing, for example, a rebellion. If there is a purpose of rebellion, the crime of rebellion should be proved if there is a purpose of the national constitution, and whether the members of the State Council objected here, these have nothing to do with the president's proof of rebellion charges. If it does matter, there is room for abuse of authority. Make an appeal like this. Abuse of authority is not subject to prosecution. That's why I don't understand why investigating this so far. It's not a job as an investigative agency.

[Anchor]
There may be procedural problems, but in terms of the content, isn't it important whether or not to make an arrest? Now, the Special Prosecutor's Office says that the counterintelligence agent has secured relevant statements supporting the arrest team to the National Police Agency, but what will happen to the arrest team?

[Seol Joo-wan]
The arrest team is connected to the police, and it is also connected to the recent seizure and search of the prosecution's national copy. However, if we only look at the statements from the police, they say that they did not know what it was about at the time and did not know who to arrest, and that they were trying to recruit police personnel by demanding from the counterintelligence agency. Then, I think it should be confirmed whether you knew or not about who you should arrest specifically. The police have not yet discussed whether to arrest a specific person who will be arrested. It may be difficult to say that he participated in the civil war on his own. It's just that I was contacted and prepared. If so, it is difficult to admit that the police even sympathized with the rebellion or the rebellion, and that they participated in it.Ma can say that he participated in the civil war if the arrest of someone and the arrest of a specific politician are discussed or a list comes out through future investigations.

[Anchor]
In the midst of this, political circles are in conflict over the Special Prosecutor Act. The main opposition Democratic Party should announce to Acting President Han Duck-soo the two independent counsel laws, namely the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act and the Special Prosecutor Act on First Lady Kim Gun-hee by tomorrow. I revealed it by nailing the deadline like this. However, the power of the people is confronting that this is a threatening statement. What do you think?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
It's an anti-constitutional threatening statement, let me define it. For example, political attacks can be made politically. So please do it by the 24th tomorrow. Because there are two Cabinet meetings left, one is the 24th and one is the 311th, so make a decision quickly and try to stabilize the state of affairs. This can be demanded by political parties. But if you don't comply, I'll hold you accountable. The type of responsibility is impeachment. So this is an anti-constitutional threat. Because we can decide on the court's fear by the 15th. It's stipulated in the Constitution. I'm asking the president for deliberation under the constitution. Ask for deliberation and ask for reconsideration if it is against the interests of the whole people or if it does not fit the legal system. Then the lawmakers decide again. It's a constitutional system. By the way, if a political party does this to the opposition party, they will impeach this constitutional system, what is impeachment? It's impeachment when you violate the Constitution and the law. Are you saying that they're going to decide the constitution themselves? It doesn't fit. So this is threatening the acting president with a majority of seats. in an anti-constitutional way too This part doesn't fit. We need to stay at the appropriate level of political offensive. It's better to do this much to the acting chief. Beyond this, he talked about impeachment and said CEO Lee Jae-myung would not impeach him. for the stabilization of state affairs But it came back to impeachment. Then, in the United States, the system of acting Han is respected, and the relationship of trust has been diplomatically concluded. But you're going to impeach me again? You're going to re-create the State Security Council? It doesn't add up, does it?

[Anchor]
Why did the Democratic Party also push the deadline to do it by tomorrow, even though they knew there was a possibility that it could be voted on at the Cabinet meeting by the 31st?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I think it's political pressure. I personally think the two special prosecution laws should be passed. Regarding the Kim Gun-hee independent counsel law and the independent counsel law related to civil war, of course, the independent counsel related to civil war should be made. Because the police and the prosecution are investigating this case right now.Ma believes that a comprehensive conclusion should be made through the independent counsel for civil war. Only then, I think a conclusion that can be accepted by the political world will come out. In the case of Kim Gun-hee's independent counsel law, it is said that this is impossible because some people's power can investigate the People's Power Party, but I think the Democratic Party should also make some concessions.

What should be the main focus should be the contents of the special prosecution related to the Deutsche Motors case. The Changwon District Prosecutors' Office is investigating cases related to Myung Tae-kyun to some extent, and in particular, phone calls with the president and Kim Gun-hee, who are called golden phones, may be disclosed. If so, I don't think it's too late to watch the investigation and conduct an independent counsel on the incomplete part. Therefore, if the Democratic Party of Korea really wants to pass the independent counsel law, it would be better to propose a revised content than before. However, it is not good for Prime Minister Han Deok-soo to show too much hesitation in this regard. In particular, in the face of the unconstitutional emergency martial law, does it exercise its veto power with this? I wonder if I need to take into account political headwinds as an acting authority.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
If you look at the contents, the rebellion is an individual special prosecutor. It's an individual special prosecutor. And then, they're asking you to recommend candidates for the permanent special prosecution. The two are for the same purpose. It doesn't make sense to do both. Shouldn't the political circle organize it? If so, it's not a bad idea to reject this and send it back to the National Assembly to give them time and space to organize. Either the National Assembly deliberates again and does just one, or even within the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act, the legislature investigates the administration. However, one of the members of the legislature appoints a special prosecutor. We can't say that this won't be a strategic investigation.

So, if an independent counsel is not guaranteed political neutrality or fairness, it is necessary to look at it again because it is reversed. As you said, the Special Prosecutor Kim Gun-hee Act includes Myung Tae-kyun, so there are a lot of people's power lawmakers in nomination and polling institutions. Since there are many questions about whether it is a conspiracy theory or a real suspicion, if all of them are subject to investigation, the Democratic Party of Korea will be investigating the power of the people. This doesn't fit either. The rest of the related parts are under investigation. Deutsche Motors is under appeal. There is no talk of impeachment just because they vetoed six bills on people's livelihoods, which are already being taken at various institutional levels. Why are there so much interest in what other political and political investigative agencies are already doing? It's quite partisan.

[Anchor]
Opposition parties say that if acting Han Deok-soo is impeached, acting president Choi Sang-mok can also be appointed. So, if you become the acting chief executive, you'll be impeached again if you exercise your veto, and you're going to proceed like this?

[Seol Joo-wan]
This is the Democratic dilemma. In terms of democratic legitimacy, the president and the National Assembly have the strongest democratic legitimacy. But isn't the president in an accident? That's why the prime minister, who we didn't directly elect, is playing the role of president. However, he impeached the person who was playing that role, so the president appointed him with less democratic legitimacy. If so, this will also be a problem in the appointment of constitutional judges in the future.

So, it is very difficult for the Democratic Party to proceed with impeachment, so if so, the deputy prime minister for economy appoints three constitutional judges in the future? This is also a problem that can cause problems. It may have to be perfunctory, but it may be considered that unconstitutional elements continue to be latent in relation to this later. That's why I think it's right to be a little cautious about impeachment.

[Anchor]
The trend of public opinion is also likely to be a factor in the Democratic Party's decision, but there is a poll released today, so I will look at the poll. The most noticeable part of party support is the narrowing of the gap between the two parties in a week, as the public's support rate rose by 4 percentage points to 29.7% and the Democratic Party's support rate fell by 2.1 percentage points to 50.3%. How do you interpret the narrowing of the gap between the two parties?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I think the Democratic Party has focused too much on the early presidential election rather than trying to stabilize state affairs even after the presidential impeachment. Focusing on the early presidential election, it reflects the criticism that Lee Jae-myung is trying to hold an early presidential election before being deprived of his right to run for election, and that he is not going for the benefit of the majority of the people with a too narrow partisan view. Personally, the Democratic Party of Korea's intention to hold an early presidential election before Chairman Lee Jae-myung's deprivation of the right to run for election is correct, but there is no need to force it.

As you just said, we're not picking the president through indirect elections. It's not like you're shopping for the president. So, if someone doesn't listen to you, who doesn't listen to you again. These things have never been done before. And if representative Lee Jae-myung said he would not impeach the acting president as he vowed, he should not be impeached without unconstitutional measures. But to impeach someone for not listening, I don't know, I think we need to think about whether this is the attitude of the Democratic Party that respects the constitutional order.

[Anchor]
Lawyer Seol, how do you see the progress of the party's approval rating?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I think it's true that the Democratic Party is dominant. The slight increase in the approval rating of the people's power seems to be the gathering of supporters. What is unusual after President Yoon's recent statement is that he opposes the impeachment of President Yoon and is rather gaining momentum. I think it's such a mechanical rebound because some of the far-right forces of those who claim that emergency martial law is justified are very united. I don't think the current approval rating means much, but in the future, I think the party's approval rating or the approval rating for presidential candidates will be meaningful when they enter the presidential election phase in earnest depending on the process of hearing at the Constitutional Court.

[Anchor]
In the midst of this, the two parties seem to have different standards over the posting of banners by the Central Election Commission, which seems to be criticized, but I will also point out this part. The Central Election Commission has banned the posting of banners that contain such phrases as "Lee Jae-myung should not be allowed," but the public's power side is asking why Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party should not be allowed to do so without saying anything about such banners as "incompetence of rebellion." I think they refute it like this. What do you think?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
When the Central Election Commission interprets the authority in the first place, it is mainly done by the office. The election committee members don't gather and do it at a general meeting or something. That's the problem with the system. If there is a problem or an objection after the office interprets the authority, the election committee members gather and do it. You have to fix this system first. That's why I think it's right for the chairman of the election management committee to work full-time. This happened because I don't work full-time. This isn't the first time. Similar things happened in the past during the 21st general election in 2020. Pro-Japanese can do that, and then people's livelihoods fail. This is not possible. I didn't understand what this standard was. I said I'd be careful.

If you look at this, the early presidential election has not been confirmed yet. If so, we have to make a judgment with the 2027 presidential election in mind. The general election is in 2028. What's the difference then? It is a pre-election campaign because he is expected to be a presidential candidate, and it is for losing the election. What about you, Jung Hyunwook? Is there any guarantee that he won't come out again in 2028? That's also a pre-exercise. Jeong Hyeon-wook, the criminal of civil war. Another thing is, is there any guarantee that lawmaker Chung Hyeon-wook will not appear in the presidential election? I think the early presidential election will be held next time. Then let's say Lee Jae-myung is running for the early presidential election. Is there any guarantee that lawmaker Chung Hyun-wook will not run in the early presidential election? You have to interpret it normatively with this general possibility in mind, but if you interpret it with a sense of reality in your head, this is not fair election management in the law. So this is obviously wrong in my view. We need to fix it quickly.

[Anchor]
This means that the standards are ambiguous, but the power of the people is also a biased decision, and the NEC is expected to discuss it again today. Is there a possibility that the judgment will come out differently?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I also think there is some possibility. So, isn't the meaning of the early presidential election very ambiguous? When will it be early? Even if it's a month earlier than the originally scheduled presidential election in 2027, it's an early presidential election. Therefore, I think we can take issue with the fact that the decision of the Constitutional Court, which has not yet been finalized, was foreseen in advance. in connection with that part However, since saying "no Lee Jae-myung unconditionally" has a comprehensive content about what he does without any specific details, it can form negative public opinion about a specific person, so the NEC seems to have made such a judgment, but I hope we can conclude it by deliberating on objections again today.

[Anchor]
I see. Let's stop here.

So far, we've been with two lawyers, Yoon Ki-chan and Seol Ju-wan. Thank you.