Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, shall we execute the second round...What is the reason for President Yoon's mention of the Trump ruling?

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Bori
■ Starring: Lawyer Seo Jeong-bin

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

[Anchor]
Attention is focusing on future responses, including when the high-ranking government official's criminal investigation office retries to execute the arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol. President Yoon Suk Yeol reportedly insisted that an impeachment trial itself was not necessary, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's "Trump ruling" in his response to the Constitutional Court. Let's take a look at the related content with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. How are you? The deadline for the execution of the arrest warrant is the 6th, that is, until Monday. What do you think of the next execution?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, the deadline is approaching, so attention is being paid to whether or not to execute it for the rest of the year. First of all, in my personal opinion, I think one more execution will continue. Because if the execution is stopped as it is, there is a problem that could face criticism that has been coming out so far, and criticism that there is no will to investigate or execute. On the other hand, considering the next steps of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, I think it is a step to emphasize the necessity of obtaining such a warrant in the future by combining these circumstances with the execution of the warrant not just once but twice and failing to do so. That's why I'm thinking that it will continue again soon.

[Anchor]
Even if it's difficult to execute it, if the court grants permission, you can extend this period or request an arrest warrant again, as you said earlier.

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. There is a way to extend the period further in the end through re-claiming. However, there is a little question of whether it will be meaningful in reality, so will this possibility increase when an arrest warrant is issued in the same way when the warrant has failed once? Looking at the situation so far, I think it's right to think that's not the case. Therefore, some predict that they will now request an arrest warrant immediately, not a re-request for an arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
So if we go straight to the arrest warrant, will the president respond to this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Actually, it still seems hard to predict. In normal cases, it is correct to respond when an arrest warrant is requested. This is because when an arrest warrant is requested, a warrant examination will be held as to whether to issue the warrant, and the suspect will have an important time to appear in person and plead the request for the warrant. Therefore, in normal cases, it can be considered that he will attend the court in response to this, but in fact, President Yoon's claims are not based on the situation so far. In particular, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has no investigative power in the first place, which is why the issuance of the warrant itself has been consistent with the argument that it is inappropriate, so if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit requests an arrest warrant, will you appear in court here? Or, it seems difficult to predict at this time whether it will come out that it cannot respond because it is still an inappropriate claim from an agency without investigative power.

[Anchor]
Finally, one of the remaining methods is that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit omits to investigate the president directly and turns over the case to the prosecution and indicts him without detention.

[Jeongbin Seo]
It's theoretically possible. Actually, it's not the usual look. Because in the case of suspect interrogation, it is one of the most important investigations, so in most cases, the suspect is interrogated and the subsequent process is carried out, but if other evidence is deemed sufficient to reveal the charges, prosecution can be made even if the suspect is not interrogated. However, in reality, if it goes that way, I think it will inevitably face another controversy. Because if that happens, it could be an important procedure for President Yoon to guarantee his right to defend himself against the suspect's interrogation. It can be argued that the prosecution itself is unfair to omit them and prosecute them, so I think that in the end, there will be at least one investigation procedure.

[Anchor]
Then, can this part be considered the least likely?

[Jeongbin Seo]
As of now, I think it is unlikely.

[Anchor]
Is there any disadvantage if President Yoon continues to refuse to execute the arrest warrant?

[Jeongbin Seo]
There may be disadvantages. As I said earlier, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit claims an arrest warrant, it has argued that there has been no fear of running away from the presidency, but eventually, it may seem that the need for arrest is accumulating as they continue to refuse execution, so I think it will be disadvantageous to President Yoon if he continues to refuse such execution. On the one hand, it seems that this is never an advantage in the impeachment trial. In the end, the president should have shown his will to protect the constitution and laws. I think it will also be adversely affected in this regard because the National Assembly can take this as an issue and attack the president that he is not willing to fulfill his obligations to comply with the current constitution and laws.

[Anchor]
President Yoon is going through an objection process by filing prior objections or a dispute trial. But why use this strategy when there is a quasi-appeal process as a formal objection process?

[Jeongbin Seo]
When an arrest warrant is issued, it is usually possible to go through an objection procedure called arrest suit. So there is a procedure to examine whether this arrest is legal through the court. What can be bothered me is that some objection procedures are ultimately carried out while being arrested, so I think that he was very burdened with such a situation, that is, a situation in which arrest takes precedence. That's why I think I chose it after considering the objection procedures in advance.

[Anchor]
Yesterday, the security service blocked the execution of the warrant because of the security law and the security area. Is this defense logic legally sufficient?

[Jeongbin Seo]
This argument itself seems to be a little lacking logic. In the end, these regulations are about what security is, and security is an activity to prevent threats and harms to the subject's body, and the designation of a security zone. On top of that, it is true that the head of the security department can deploy and operate personnel, but it cannot be a basis for preventing this during the execution of the warrant. So I think this alone is actually a little lacking in defense logic. However, since the security agency is arguing that the warrant itself is inappropriate in the end, it seems possible to organize the logic in this way because this warrant is inappropriate and its execution is illegal. Nevertheless, I think it is a little lacking logically when looking at the overall content.

[Anchor]
I heard there was also a physical fight during the execution of the arrest yesterday. In this case, can the obstruction of special public affairs be applied?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, whether the controversial Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has the authority to investigate. So, whether this warrant is illegal or legal, this controversy needs to be resolved. So, if the premise that the execution of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit itself is a legitimate execution of public affairs is established, these acts of preventing and obstructing the execution of public affairs can be established. However, if there was even a physical fight, the possibility of establishing a crime of obstruction of the execution of special public affairs is higher because it is highly likely that multiple people used their power and assaulted them.

[Anchor]
The lawyer gave me a clue that if it's a legitimate warrant, then can I say it's not legal now?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Since the ruling and opposition parties, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and President Yoon are at odds, it is difficult for me to tell which position is more accurate.However, given the situation so far, Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act described in the warrant in question are exceptions. I think it is difficult to say that this entry itself is a matter directly related to the legality of the warrant. First of all, the warrant was issued on the premise that the investigative authority was sufficiently recognized by the investigative agency or court and this was possible, and even if the contents of this description itself are problematic, I think it is difficult to see whether the warrant itself can be denied, so I personally think it is difficult to see this warrant itself as illegal.

[Anchor]
As the confrontation continued yesterday, the head of the security and the deputy head of security asked the police to appear today. But they said they can't leave for a moment. What do you think about the applicable charges and punishments for the security chief this time?

[Seo Jung-bin]
I think the most problematic thing now is the charge of obstructing the execution of special public affairs. That's why I'm telling you again, but given the premise that the execution of this warrant is legitimate, if so, since they ordered such actions to prevent execution in the end, the charges of obstructing the execution of public affairs and obstructing the execution of special public affairs may be problematic, and further investigations such as attendance should be conducted on this part, but given the current situation, the applicability cannot be ruled out.

[Anchor]
The Democratic Party should now step up to Acting Chief Minister Choi Sang-mok. I said, "Give me instructions to the security service, and if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit continues to refuse like this, I will ask for cooperation from acting chief Choi Sang-mok." Can Acting Chief Choi Sang-mok legally direct the security services?

[Jeongbin Seo]
That's right. First of all, in the case of the president, since he is the head of the administration, he can direct and supervise the security service, and in the case of acting president Choi Sang-mok, who is acting on behalf of the authority, he can exercise such authority as well. For this reason, it seems that the Democratic Party and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit are actively asking for such a command.

[Anchor]
So Choi's personal judgment is left, and even if he is the acting president, he can do everything he can, right?

[Jeongbin Seo]
Of course, I don't think we can exercise that power to cause a change in the status quo, but I don't think such a problem will arise with regard to internal security, and if so, it seems that it remains up to the acting authority to decide whether to conduct the command.

[Anchor]
I think the confusion regarding the execution of the warrant will continue in the future. This time, let's look at the impeachment trial. The second preparatory date will be held at the Constitutional Court. Impeachment trial, it's already held. It was held yesterday, and the issue of the impeachment trial and the arrangement of evidence have now been completed, can we see it like this? [Seo Jeongbin] You can think of it as a rough summary. In the case of the hearing preparation period, in the end, it is a procedure in which both sides express their opinions on what points will be mainly dealt with as issues in future hearings and how to prove them, and the court organizes them. As of yesterday, the preparation date for the hearing has been completed, and the hearing dates are scheduled to take place in the future, so the outline has already been organized, but not all evidence submission or proof plans have been completed, and additional witness requests or evidence requests can be made from both sides in the future hearing process.

[Anchor]
In the meantime, he accepted the National Assembly's request to secure investigation records. What effect will this part have?

[Jeongbin Seo]
I think it's going to be used as a very important piece of evidence in this impeachment trial. In the case of investigative records, there is no other authority to receive documents on them unless they are authorized institutions such as courts or constitutional courts. That's why the National Assembly hoped to receive such investigation records through the Constitutional Court, and the court accepted them. In the end, the contents can be used as very important evidence in this impeachment trial because they include specific circumstances related to the declaration of martial law in this case, not only President Yoon's position, but also statements of those involved and material evidence. So, this part is secured and it seems to be a very important material so that both sides have quite a fight with each other.

[Anchor]
Now, the National Assembly has announced that it will withdraw the violation of the rebellion in the reason for the impeachment. Why is this part like that?

[Jeongbin Seo]
In the end, it seems that this decision was made for the prompt hearing of impeachment. If you try to proceed with the charge of rebellion as a specific reason for impeachment, you have no choice but to consider the progress of the investigation at this investigative agency and the progress of the trial afterwards. If the judgment in the Constitutional Court and the judgment in the criminal court were different, another problem could arise at that time, so in the end, there was a considerable delay in time. Therefore, I think that the crime of rebellion will be withdrawn in such a way that it does not actually seek judgment to this part, and the focus will be on whether martial law is unconstitutional.

[Anchor]
With the Democratic Party coming out like this, the president is protesting. Therefore, as the reason has changed, it is argued that it should be judged again by the National Assembly. What is your opinion on this argument?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, this argument does not seem to violate the clear ground rules of the National Assembly Act or the Constitution, so a re-decision is needed. So, rather than making a claim with any legal basis, it seems to be a claim to examine the legitimacy of the impeachment prosecution as a whole, including these issues. So in the end, combined with the rest of the arguments, this impeachment is either inappropriate or unjustified. I think it's one of those arguments to make this argument.

[Anchor]
But there was a unique opinion. Yesterday, President Yoon's representative mentioned the Trump ruling. Can you explain this part first?

[Seo Jung-bin]
The Trump ruling mentioned by Yoon's representative is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in July last year. There was a ruling against former President Donald Trump at the time. To tell you a little bit about the decision, criminal prosecution should be exempted for public acts during the former president's tenure. Therefore, if the president's actions were made within the final and exclusive authority under the Constitution, Congress or the court could not regulate or examine them. Therefore, compared to these, President Yoon's declaration of martial law is an area where not only the National Assembly but also the courts cannot judge it. I think they're making this argument. It seems to be almost in line with the fact that this is an act of governance that has been argued before, so you should refrain from making such judgments, or that you can't judge it.

[Anchor]
However, the U.S. law does not clearly stipulate the president's privilege to remove fluoride, but Korea cannot be compared together because it stipulates punishment for rebellion. There's a comment like this. How do you see it?

[Jeongbin Seo]
First of all, looking at such academic opinions, the legal structure is different from that of the United States. And unlike in the United States, we have constitutional provisions regarding the possibility of prosecution against the president. In principle, prosecution cannot be made, but exceptionally, it stipulates that prosecution can be made for crimes of rebellion and foreign exchange. So, as long as you are suspected of rebellion, the court can judge it, and these opinions are coming out now. So in the end, I think it's a very difficult problem to directly compare with Trump as long as the structure of the U.S. law and the Korean law are different and there are regulations in the inscription. However, since it is the same situation as the concept of governance or the restriction of judicial review on it, I think it would be good to see it as an argument to further strengthen this argument.

[Anchor]
I'll ask you one last question. President Yoon also took issue with the constitution of the Constitutional Court. Since the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Deok-soo itself is invalid, Acting Chief Justice Choi Sang-mok has appointed two judges, Jeong Gye-seon and Cho Han-chang. They claim that this is also invalid. Will the Constitutional Court accept this?

[Jeongbin Seo]
The issue of the appointment of acting authorities has continued to be raised by the people's power. However, I think it is a little less likely that the Constitutional Court will accept this argument in this situation. Because until recently, the Constitutional Court hopes to complete the Constitutional Court as soon as possible for a fair and prompt hearing. So, we have even urged the recruitment of one vacancy. So, this is a situation in which the acting justice's appointment is finally possible, so I think it is difficult for these arguments to be accepted in this situation unless the Constitutional Court changes its position.

[Anchor]
Let's stop here. So far, I've been with lawyer Seo Jeong-bin. Thank you for talking today.