[New Square 10] Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, Yoon's arrest warrant execution to the police...Why?

■ Host: Anchor Park Seok-won, Anchor Um Ji-min
■ Starring: Attorney Yoongi-chan, Attorney Seol Ju-wan

* 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 background is drawing attention as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has decided to hand over related tasks to the police ahead of the expiration of the arrest warrant for President Yoon. I'll go through the details with the two of you. We are with lawyer Yoon Ki-chan and lawyer Seol Ju-wan. Welcome. Let's first look at the details of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit The warrant expired today, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit decided to hand over only the execution of the warrant to the police. Let's start with the background of the
decision.

[Seol Joo-wan]
I think the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit realized that it was physically difficult during the last execution process. So, I think they must have been very concerned about how more troops are needed to prevent mishaps and such in the execution process. Substantially, it was concluded that it was impossible only with the manpower of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. Therefore, in a way, it became a trick, not a trick, that the police wanted to take over only the execution of the arrest warrant. I think this decision will be significantly affected by whether the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can continue its investigation in the future, given that it has become a situation where the ruling and opposition parties and the public have no choice but to be criticized.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit claims that it is possible under Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Act, so how should we view this legally?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
The rationale is that you found Article 81. According to Article 81, the warrant issued by the court is directed by the prosecutor and the execution is conducted by the judicial police officer, but the prosecution office also has a judicial police officer. The people we're talking about as a kind of chief. These people are judicial police officers. So there is also a judicial police officer in the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. Investigators, these are judicial police officers. Originally, the prosecutor is commanded and executed by the judicial police officer. But what the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit says is that since the police are also judicial police officers, the regulations are applied mutatis mutandis to the arrest regulations. If so, it is an explanation to the effect that the regulation can be applied mutatis mutandis to the police, but the prosecution does not do that because there is room for an extended interpretation of the law.

In the case of the prosecution, in the case of a warrant requested by the prosecution by the police, the police execute it. I think that the process became a command. It's not that the prosecution can execute it only when it directs, but the police actually execute it on their own. Then, even in the case of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the judicial police officer, who is their manpower, can execute it. However, only the execution is handed over to the police separately. I'm turning it over, but this isn't the right part. Because the purpose of our revision of the Criminal Procedure Act is that judicial police officers and prosecutors are in equal command and cooperation, not hierarchical status.

So, based on this, there is a part called enlarged interpretation. Another thing is that even according to the bylaws of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the original police can apply for an arrest warrant to the prosecution and the prosecution can request it. However, the police applied for an arrest warrant to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, so the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit cannot request it. That's why I turned the case over. So in the end, what this is is that the trick was illegal, as you said earlier. After taking over the case from the police, they claim a warrant, get a warrant, and then you do it again, and this is how they execute a warrant that they can't claim after receiving the original application. It doesn't fit.

If you were to make such an interpretation, you shouldn't make such bylaws in the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. In the case of a search warrant, the police can apply and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can request it. in the case of a warrant for an object However, there is no legal thing that the police can apply to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and request the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit for personal, arrest, and arrest warrants. It is not made like that in the bylaws of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. So originally, the police were supposed to apply for an arrest warrant and an arrest warrant was requested by the prosecution, but this blind spot was formed through the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. Therefore, even if you look at the purpose of making the bylaws, the bylaws prevent you from requesting an arrest warrant from the police, and you are actually violating the bylaws. So there are parts that don't fit.

[Anchor]
However, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit seems to be considering extending the validity of the arrest warrant, what do you think about the possibility? I don't think the cooperation with the police has gone well yet.

[Seol Joo-wan]
So far, the National Assembly is insisting that it will review the legal principles. It was probably handed over by the National Forensic Service this morning, so I think today will conclude that the police will be able to do this in this way, and that they can't do it themselves by reviewing whether there is a legal defect in the part that lawyer Yoon said earlier. As for the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the warrant is valid until today, so we have no choice but to renew it.

That's how they're making the announcement. That's why I think it's possible to renew the warrant itself. This doesn't seem to have a problem with extending the arrest warrant because it's not a change of reason or a change of circumstances, it's a situation where you're continuing to refuse arrest and you're more actively preventing it.Can Ma do this only by transferring the execution from the police? Rather, there seems to be no problem if we transfer the case, but the question of whether it is possible to transfer only the execution remains.

[Anchor]
The president of Yoon Suk Yeol has been legally protesting the issuance of an arrest warrant. However, they criticize this part as well, saying, "Are you subcontracting the construction?" If the police accept this and proceed with the execution of the warrant, isn't there a high possibility that the president will reject it again?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
Rather than rejection, there can be a series of defects that follow later. Even the police should not receive it. Personally, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit unilaterally delegated the execution of the case through an official letter? I don't understand this either. Wouldn't you have negotiated something? Since the official letter is usually a communication between certain organizations, it is done for the final communication, and was there no consultation process before? I wonder if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit immediately handed over the official letter without consulting with the police on this part as well? I'm also suspicious of this part. Because the last expiration date is at the end of today, but it was unilaterally handed it over last night.

I heard that I'm back today.I wonder if Ma has been so lax in the execution of arrest warrants for important presidents between state agencies anyway. Personally, whether it's the national investigation headquarters or the security investigation team, there are a lot of actual security investigation teams. Then, I basically had a meeting about whether I would have passed it without a process of coordinating opinions with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. Let's say there's a process of coordinating opinions.Even if you passed it without it or without it, it means that you are reviewing the legal principles now. It doesn't add up, does it? After reviewing the legal principles, you have to hand it over.

Even in the case of the police, even if they say that they can be handed over by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, shouldn't there be a legal review for the police to be delegated and handed over? That's why it doesn't add up. I thought I was motivated, so the president already has the right to investigate such an important issue, and is it against the Constitution or not? I think it's too fast in a situation where various problems are raised.

Wouldn't it be right to follow the rules? So, if it's because of the resonance of some institutions or if it's because of the resonance of members of general institutions, I don't think it's really for the people, so I think it's right to proceed in any way after being a little calm and faithfully interpreting the law.

[Anchor]
This situation is also happening because the execution of the warrant is not properly carried out as it is and the expiration date is about to expire. In the end, isn't the conflict with the security chief one of the reasons for the failure to execute? However, the security chief made an unusual statement. How did you see this?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I wonder if there has been such a video message from the chief of security until yesterday, but I think it is quite inappropriate. There's something that I don't understand in itself. You mean you're going to be loyal to the president. I'm a sitting president. However, is the warrant issued by the court damaging the president's current security environment and the president's circumstances? I don't understand that. Then, in relation to security, you only need to protect the president's safety, but I will prevent it in the process of executing the warrant. It's simply unacceptable that it's inevitable to be safe.

Then, if the security service designates a military secret or something like that, isn't there several stages of military secret? There's a water supply. But if you just designate it as a military secret area, no warrant can be allowed there? If so, why is the modern version of Seodo created? I don't think that makes sense. Yesterday's story of the security chief was seen only as a declaration to protect the president's safety at the risk of his own punishment.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
But this is a forced investigation. I'll make sure there's no controversy. There should not be such an issue that is the subject of a battle between the two sides. There is a controversy over whether or not the description of the warrant that made Articles 110 and 111 excluded from the application under the Criminal Law is a violation of the law. There is a controversy within the legal profession. For example, if it is limited to controversy within the political circle, it is another problem, but there is also controversy within the legal profession. Of course, the Western District Court dismissed the objection, but the president does not have the authority to file an objection. So, he dismissed the lack of authority and made that a reason. This is not authorized.

Then I shouldn't do it, but I did it incidentally. Anyway, there are a lot of unusual parts that follow in our view, so there is an aspect that the part related to compulsory disposition should be subject to no objection. The contents of the warrant are as the lawyer said. Don't come in with Articles 110 and 111 of the Penal Code, let's say you can't do this. There's also the rest of the Military Facility Protection Act. Under the Military Facility Protection Act, of course, it depends on whether it is a restricted area or a controlled area, but there are areas where the relevant unit chief does not allow it, but there are areas where it is not allowed to come in. If so, if the security service objected to it by applying it, then there is a different part of it.

So, the part that is subject to criticism is that there are parts that need to be executed or issued while avoiding controversy, and finally, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has delegated only the execution, but in fact, then you have to hand over the case. If the police proceed with that kind of procedure, it will not be controversial at that time. No one is arguing about the right to civil war that the police have the right to investigate. Nevertheless, as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit stepped up and investigated the abuse of authority, we became aware of the crime of rebellion, so I wonder what would be arbitrarily telling us to have the right to investigate.

If this is a different case, but rebellion is a collective crime. Isn't it basically an abuse of authority? The part of civil war is called civil war because it is not originally a legitimate declaration of martial law. Such civil war includes abuse of authority, obstruction of justice, and assault. I don't recognize it separately. This part is originally a component of the rebellion. Nevertheless, while investigating the abuse of authority, the crime of rebellion came out, so I recognized this, so it's my right to investigate, and do I have to do it while claiming it like this? Despite the clear jurisdiction of an investigative agency called the other police of the national investigative agency. So, these parts should be treated so that there is no backbiting regardless of the fairness or institutional selfishness of each investigative agency.

[Anchor]
Both of you are in the position that it is right to transfer the case to the police, but do you think there is a possibility that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will take over the case itself as a police officer in the future?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I think that's the way it should be. This is because the prosecution's handling of the case is slightly different from the prosecution's abuse of authority over the president's declaration of martial law. And since the president's abuse of authority is a general crime, it is controversial whether it is subject to fluoridation. There is another controversy over whether it can be investigated if it is subject to fluoridation privileges. So, there is no need to push ahead with controversial things. Even though there is no objection to the police having clear investigation rights, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit took it and investigated it, and now this division has occurred.

So, personally, the police investigate the crime of rebellion, but it is up to the police themselves to decide whether to forcibly investigate it or to investigate it arbitrarily. You can handle it like that. Let's divide this up. And as I said earlier, the reason why the prosecution handed over the investigation rights to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is because of an arrest warrant. That's how all the search and seizure warrants were issued. However, since the arrest warrant cannot be requested by the police or the prosecutor of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, it is handed over and then brought back and only executed? I don't know if it's okay to divide the work and do it like this.

[Anchor]
What do you think?

[Seol Joo-wan]
In the early stages of the investigation, there was also a little selfishness between each institution. I think he had pride, too. Since the police keep requesting warrants from the prosecution, wouldn't they be able to request warrants in advance? That's why the prosecution learned the information first. After that, they went and refused all cases of warrants requested by the police, and then they went and claimed them all, confiscated them, and then arrested them. As a result, the police cannot investigate with the prosecution. That's why I set up a collaboration copy with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. As a result, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit asked for food that they couldn't swallow. That's why he exercised his right to request a transfer to the prosecution, but according to the law, he has to transfer.

It's a mandatory regulation under the Public Offices Act. That's why the prosecution naturally transferred the case against President Yoon Suk Yeol and Minister Lee Sang-min. But there was a problem after that. Rather, I think it would have been better if the National Assembly had conducted the investigation from the beginning in this regard. In a way, I think the indictment against President Yoon Suk Yeol is already out. I think the last indictment against former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun is almost an indictment against President Yoon Suk Yeol. If that's the case, the investigation ability that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is showing right now, and the arrest warrant, and it's not an arrest warrant.

The incompetence shown in the execution of the arrest warrant has been revealed to the world. If both the ruling and opposition parties are going to do this, hand over the case to the police, according to the principle. If that's what's being said now, I think you can make a claim to renew the arrest warrant period, but if you think it's less time, it's right to go back to the principle.

Rather, I think it would be better to conduct an investigation by the National Police Agency, request an arrest warrant or an arrest warrant later to the prosecution, obtain it through the central prosecution, and then proceed with it. However, according to what President Yoon Suk Yeol said yesterday, he may respond to the police's investigation. I put a clue on it. You can't say things like, "I'll get it at a third place." Was the president's public opinion good because Kim Gun-hee did that now? I was criticized a lot, criticized. That's not even the principle.

If that's the case, I think it's right to attend the national script and receive a summons. I will be investigated by the police regarding that, but I can, but it is not appropriate to attach any conditions. Because I don't think it's the right way to do it, I think that in a way, going back to principle can actually reduce time.

[Anchor]
Didn't the court reject President Yoon's objection to the arrest warrant when there was such a debate? The court that issued the warrant also said it was a court in its jurisdiction, and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit also has the authority to investigate and execute the warrant. Despite the court's judgment, do you think there is no possibility of responding even after extending the warrant period in the future?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I don't think it belongs to the court judgment. This is because the court's judgment did not exercise the power of the law like a quasi-appeal and was judged on it, but filed a civil complaint using a system that was not actually in the criminal law of filing an objection. But the court judge is a single judge, but he is a senior judge. It's enough to judge that you don't have the legal authority to claim this, but you added a few more things to it. This is why you can't do this, that's why you can't do that. But it's seen by anyone as a similar court.

Originally, if you raise an objection, in fact, another court has to do it, but since a judge of the same level did it in the same court, there is one part that bothers you. The other thing is that I added a few words to it even though you didn't have to make that judgment. It is correct that this part is not controversial. Another thing is that I think it's my duty to transfer from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to the police. Because I don't think they have any jurisdiction. In addition, since there is a great deal of dispute over the existence of jurisdiction, it is necessary to argue about whether you have the right to request a transfer.

If so, to be honest, I personally think that the part I was transferred to the police for the convenience of applying for a warrant, so I think it would be right to send it to the police if I consider such a transfer or the investigation jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit comprehensively.

[Seol Joo-wan]
But in terms of warrants, I don't think it's illegal, it's not a proper warrant, it's the right of the president of Yoon Suk Yeol to judge this. First of all, it is a warrant issued through due process in the court, and also through 33 hours of consideration. And if you go through another process called an objection and you've been judged by another judge, of course, not the same judge, then I think this warrant itself is legal. Then, I don't think the president has the right to reject a legitimate warrant as illegal. What I would like to criticize is the failure of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to properly complete this in the process of executing a legitimate warrant. Regarding the failure to complete the execution of the arrest warrant, I want to point out the work ability of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but the warrant itself is wrong, and I don't think I have the right to judge President Yoon Suk Yeol.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
But of course, it can happen from the perspective of the suspect. However, if you look at the perspective of the legal professionals, there is a clear legal provision. Is it Article 216? If you look at it, it's an arrest warrant. So, when executing an arrest warrant and an arrest warrant, there is a basis for searching without a warrant. However, according to the provisions of the grounds that the search can be conducted, Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Law are to be applied mutatis mutandis. So even in the case of an urgent search without a warrant, you have to search with permission. However, even though there are prestigious regulations, there are quite a few opinions that the legal profession cannot understand how to exclude them, so I think this needs to be considered.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has only appointed the arrest warrant as a police officer, and we will deliver the police's position when it comes out shortly. If the police accept the arrest warrant and go to execution, then President Yoon Suk Yeol doesn't know then, but what position will the security agency take?

[Seol Joo-wan]
As things stand now, I don't think we'll change our position. I'm complaining about the warrant itself. While considering the illegality, they are taking issue with the warrant itself applied by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. If so, whether this is executed by the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or by entrusting the execution to the police, for example, it is rather the effect derived from the warrant. That is why the president is taking issue with the warrant itself, so wouldn't it go to the same situation as now? Rather, looking at the situation this morning, more than 30 members of the People's Power Party went, preventing it. If so, I think the enforcement itself would have become much more difficult in reality.

[Anchor]
Let's also look at the political battle. The National Assembly's impeachment investigation team is now facing a very sharp confrontation over the withdrawal of the rebellion in the impeachment statement. What do you think about this?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I think there's a problem. That's a problem within the National Assembly itself rather than a problem in relation to the respondent and the president. Because it's the same as the first law proposal. If you propose, the contents of the proposal will be discussed at the National Assembly. And if the decision is made without amendment after discussing the contents of the proposal, it is decided as it is, like a statute. After it is voted on, can you fix it after the statute is promulgated? There's no such thing. If you try to fix it, the National Assembly has to revise it. What is different from the general prosecution is that the impeachment motion is proposed and remains in effect only when more than a certain number of lawmakers within the National Assembly agree. However, some of them, especially important parts, are arbitrarily excluded without further discussion by lawmakers. I think it's weird to see this as possible.

Of course, if there is a discussion regarding the quorum of decisions, I personally understand it, but it is just possible. Partial withdrawal of prosecution is possible, I don't understand this. You can see it by confronting it with the law. Why did they have a quorum for prosecution? The reason why the prosecution has a quorum of more than 200 seats is that if you agree with the impeachment bill after lawmakers have considered it enough, the president should be fired if it is not this much. You gave me that standard. However, some of the contents are excluded from the standard.

Then this doesn't establish itself. Anyone can see this, but shouldn't we ask the lawmakers again? However, depending on what decision quorum you want when you ask, it is subject to debate and also in Germany.Ma can just do it one way? I don't think this makes sense. The other is that it was the same as President Park Geun Hye, but the Constitutional Court Act says that it can be corrected. It can be supplemented. It can be supplemented to the extent that it is not far out of the box.

It's a summary of the reasons for impeachment. However, at that time, representative Kwon Sung-dong had no objection to the supplementation and reorganization, but the lawmakers had no objection. There was no one in the
National Assembly who claimed that why didn't you ask me, my voting rights were violated. It was only raised by the respondent to the impeachment trial. It's different from this one. Now, within the National Assembly, there is a problem with this part of exercising my right to vote. Then, it's right to vote again or listen to your opinion. Another thing is to use the word "insurrection" and not to see if it constitutes a crime of rebellion, but you can't use it. Because the act of rebellion can only be used if the crime of rebellion is established.

But how do you use the expression "insurrection act" without seeing the requirements for the establishment of a rebellion crime? In the past, what we're talking about is a rebellion called revolution, power deprivation, and so on. That's not it now. If there is a purpose of a civil war, it is a civil war, and whether martial law falls under that can only be used if it falls under the constitution of Article 87 of the Criminal Code. But you're just going to use the act of rebellion, excluding whether it meets the requirements of the crime of rebellion? It doesn't add up. So I think this part needs to be considered a little more.

[Seol Joo-wan]
So, there's a sense that this part has become a bit like a pun to each other. However, it is related to the act of rebellion and the emergency martial law incident on December 3rd. What the prosecution committee is talking about now is whether or not the act of declaring emergency martial law constitutes a crime of rebellion in the criminal court. So, there is no need for the Constitutional Court to determine whether or not that part constitutes rebellion. The Constitutional Court is basically a Constitutional Court. Then, whether or not President Yoon Suk Yeol's declaration of emergency martial law on December 3rd meets the requirements of the declaration of emergency martial law stipulated in the Constitution.

The purpose of the National Constitution, for example, is it an emergency situation? Was it declared in accordance with such an emergency situation? But the president said he declared an emergency martial law to understand fraudulent elections. Then, is this a requirement for emergency martial law? Which constitution states that emergency martial law can be declared to investigate fraudulent elections among the emergency martial law requirements? There's no such thing. This in itself is a breach of the Constitution. And if the violation itself is judged to be a serious violation of the president's duties, for example, the Constitutional Court decides to dismiss him.

So, what I'm talking about now is not about removing the crime of rebellion and excluding the entire crime of rebellion. However, I think you can criticize it as well as talk about it from the power of the people. This is the most important thing, but what the Democratic Party keeps talking about is the crime of rebellion, the accomplices of the rebellion, and the power of the rebellion, so don't you keep building the frame like this? You can say so when you say you'll take out the most important thing from there, but legally, the Constitutional Court does not judge whether or not it is guilty of rebellion, so it is an act of rebellion because the emergency martial law failed in that day's emergency martial law. Therefore, there will be no problem in that regard. I don't think there will be any need for a re-decision.

[Yoon Ki-chan]
What needs to be taken seriously is that the word rebellion has that meaning. This is not a common social term. It's not an academic term, it's a legal term. It must fall under Article 87 of the Criminal Code, but it can be evaluated as a civil war. That's why there's a problem. If so, you can modify the other one like this. Just an act that doesn't meet the actual and formal requirements of emergency martial law. This is fine. But if you look at it, there is an act of rebellion. Therefore, I will not judge the constituent requirements of the crime of rebellion. It's just excluding the application of the law.

What it means is that we will use all the acts of rebellion and see if it meets the requirements of the application of the law. In order to argue about whether the president meets the constitutional requirements, he deprives the president of the opportunity to call witnesses and only puts in the act of rebellion. In the procedural requirements, the respondent's right to defend himself is not guaranteed at all, but the act of rebellion is borrowed and used. It doesn't add up. You shouldn't proceed with the trial in such a hasty manner.

[Anchor]
There are calls within the ruling party that the voting rights should be re-voted because they violated the right to vote, but lawmakers who voted for impeachment within the ruling party are also criticizing it. Rep. Kim Sang-wook also argues that it is a political purpose to conclude the early presidential election before the second trial of Lee Jae-myung. Even in the case of former lawmaker Yoo Seung Min, if the impeachment is decided like this, the people cannot accept the impeachment decision. What is your position when you claim it like this?

[Seol Joo-wan]
Decisions in this regard are to be made by the Constitutional Court. It's a battle between the prosecution committee and the respondent. Should I take this out or put it in? The National Assembly's prosecution committee said it was actually a withdrawal to be a little inaccurate. So if you say you're legally withdrawing it, for example, when the judge asks, you say you're withdrawing it, so you're actually withdrawing it. Then, I will not just argue this, whether the fact that it is actually a withdrawal means that the Constitutional Court will accurately and legally remove all of it. Therefore, it is true that he answered vaguely, whether it means that he will not actively make the claim, although it is written down.

However, Judge Hyung-sik also said that the Constitutional Court would judge this part, so there will be a little more controversy over this part, but I don't think there is a need to go to a re-decision or a re-decision. I think it is possible to apply for a power dispute due to the infringement of the right to vote in the power of the people. However, among the lawmakers who voted for impeachment, Kim Jae-seop said on the radio this morning that there is no need for a re-vote. Therefore, even within the power of the people, even from the perspective of lawmakers who voted for impeachment, there seems to be a disagreement on this issue.

[Anchor]
What do you think? The Democratic Party's offensive continues to advance the impeachment process as soon as possible. That's why I'm withdrawing my rebellion charges, what about claims that say?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
Otherwise, there is no reason to withdraw. Because if you want to be judged strictly anyway, you have to deliberate faithfully. If so, from the standpoint of the National Assembly's prosecution committee, if it is impossible to predict whether it will be rejected or cited, would you take it out carelessly? Something strange happened. The fact that the most important part was expressed out of the blue, which some of the people may misunderstand that the Constitutional Judge predicted and grasped it. However, if the prediction is not understood, the task of the prosecution members is to quote this. You have to put a lot more to quote. Isn't it usually the duty of the prosecution committee members to faithfully examine them and put in many reasons so that if some of them are cited, they will be dismissed?

But you're going to take out the important part? It's kind of weird. What are you going to do if you get rejected? So, in the end, it means that it will proceed quickly, and even if it proceeds quickly, it is likely to be cited. He did something that could be misunderstood as confirming the prediction.

[Anchor]
Today, the Constitutional Court, which has become an eight-member system, will hold a meeting for the first time. I think there will be a mention of this, what do you think?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
I think it should be different from the comments of the constitutional judges and the action in terms of the autonomy of the National Assembly. Perhaps this part is not withdrawn, and there is room for exercising the right to command the lawsuit in terms of correction. Let's adjust it to this extent. However, whether the prosecutor will accept the correction is another matter. We need to confirm our intentions between the two parties in the National Assembly. Because both parties represent the lawmakers. Another thing is that we need to clearly define the impeachment trial of former acting Prime Minister Han Deok-soo. This is because the two constitutional judges are now going to the constitutional trial following the appointment of acting Choi.

However, if the constitutional trial against former acting authority Han is invalid, the impeachment is invalid. There is a problem with the quorum of decisions. Then, if you drop the crime of rebellion, you impeached it through neglect of the crime of rebellion and cooperation. The reason for impeachment is also clear. Otherwise, if the impeachment of acting president Han Deok-soo is clearly dismissed and invalid, there is a possibility that the appointment of constitutional judges itself will be nullified. So you have to organize this part quickly. Only then will it not be a matter of whether the trial involving two constitutional judges will be effective or not later.

[Anchor]
The National Assembly is also expecting a double special prosecution vote tomorrow. What do you predict about this from the Democratic Party's point of view that it will re-vote the bilateral special prosecution law and proceed with the interpellation session ever since?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I don't think there's any internal organization in terms of the power of the people regarding the double special prosecution.I believe that the independent counsel law should be passed, but I don't know what position Kim Gun-hee takes in terms of the power of the people regarding the independent counsel law. I don't know if you continue to insist on this part or not, but I think there will be intensive discussions about the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or investigative agencies regarding the government question tomorrow. Regarding acting Choi Sang-mok, I think he will ask about the economic part, and the most problematic part is that he will appoint ambassadors from each country who have not yet been appointed in connection with the inauguration of the Trump administration.

[Anchor]
Regarding the Kim Gun-hee independent counsel law, it increased little by little every three times within the ruling party. What do you expect this time?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
There were up to six votes last time. So, if there are two more votes, it will be re-voted and passed, but the Kim Gun-hee Special Prosecutor Act contains 15 things about Kim Gun-hee. There are 15, but many cases are related to the ongoing investigation and being prosecuted and tried. That's the problem, and the biggest problem in the Kim Gun-hee Special Prosecutor Act is that the method of appointing the special prosecutor is one problem. The Democratic Party is supposed to appoint all of them. Then, there is a reason related to pollack bacteria. The part that contains reasons related to pollack bacteria is directly related to the power of the people.

Although the mentioned lawmakers are currently in the process of raising suspicions, anyway, it would be like the Democratic Party investigating the power of the people. Investigating the power of the people could lead to a situation in which the power of the people could not be nominated if there is an early presidential election. That's why political parties investigate political parties through special prosecutors, which doesn't add up. That's definitely the part that if an unconstitutional element falls out in that way, it's still problematic even if it's worth considering then. The same goes for individual special prosecutors.

There's a permanent special prosecution law. We do permanent special prosecutors and individual special prosecutors. In the same way, the Democratic Party appoints individual special prosecutors. The same goes for the permanent special prosecutor. The Democratic Party of Korea is almost arbitrarily forming a special prosecutor candidate selection recommendation committee. Originally, both the power of the people were excluded. In this way, if you do a recommendation process or an appointment process that is favorable to you at that time, this is not right. So, if you say you are prepared to discuss these parts, you will take out these parts, and the Democratic Party should declare.

[Anchor]
There seems to be such a discussion. If it is discarded on the 7th or tomorrow, it will be reissued on the 13th, but when re-issuing, remove the pollack gate and put it in a three-way recommended method. Such a plan is also being discussed, so what do you think?

[Seol Joo-wan]
The Democratic Party needs to make it work. This situation is different than before impeachment. No matter who investigates, whether it is an investigative agency or anyone, for example, it is not an investigation situation that can be biased against someone or something like this. If so, the Democratic Party should not cling too much to the right to recommend prosecutors. Even if the acting president is appointed, for example, by one ruling and opposition parties, the results of the investigation will be different in my view. Essentially, this is really going to change, because I don't see it like this. Since the current situation is near the end of the administration, I think if the Democratic Party really wants to proceed with the special prosecution in this regard, it is right to reduce the scope and proceed with the Deutsche Motors case alone.

Then, in the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act and various special prosecutor laws, I think it would be a way to expedite the special prosecutor's recommendation by making an agreement between the ruling and opposition parties or one by one so that the acting president can nominate them.

[Anchor]
If the opposition party narrows the scope of the special prosecution to Deutsche Motors, will the ruling party increase its chances of accepting it?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
It's going to be higher. However, even if the contents of the special prosecution have changed from time to time, I can't figure it out well. Sometimes, I go to two, then 14 and then 15. There are 14 items in the Insurrection Special Prosecutor Act. The Democratic Party's unilateral proposal or passage of the Special Counsel Act without deliberation is itself problematic. That's why we need to ensure the deliberation process. I don't know which amendment is right after I put it out as I please. I came up with an alternative, but I can't figure it out.

[Anchor]
Let's take a look at the polls as well. There are some areas where the polls are noticeable because the support of the people's power has risen by 3 points and a few points, and the support of the Democratic Party has fallen slightly. How can we read this change in support?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I hope the president doesn't misunderstand the results of yesterday's and today's opinion polls. This is not even support for the president. It's definitely not. It seems to have rallied from the existing conservative supporters. So I think he thought the conservative camp would be destroyed if he goes like this. As the president says, he wrote a letter to some of his supporters asking for his support.Ma doesn't see that as reflecting that result. So I think the solidity of the conservative supporters has gathered once again. However, I really want to ask you not to misunderstand the power of the people or the president.

[Anchor]
How do you think the president sees that poll?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
If we look at that poll, it's not enough. However, compared to previous polls in 2016 and 17 years when former President Park Geun Hye was impeached, the approval rating was almost 30% just before impeachment and before the reason for impeachment occurred. After it was maintained and impeached, it went to 18%, 12%, 8% at the time. I'm maintaining it now. There's a bit of a difference. First of all, it's a part that has a learning effect. At that time, former President Park Geun Hye had a very strong relationship with the Saenuri Party.

So, former President Park Geun Hye was impeached, and the damage to the Saenuri Party was very big. In the case of President Yoon Suk Yeol now, there is one part where the damage to the party is less because the solidarity was not so great. Another thing is that the relative evaluation of representative Lee Jae-myung is different. At that time, former President Moon Jae In was not so strong in anti-Moon sentiment. Right now, the emotions of half people can be stronger than you think.

Therefore, in the case of the Democratic Party, there is a slight deviation from the middle class. So rather, don't let the investigation go and let it go, but I think the gap between the Democratic Party and the people's power can be narrowed unless what Representative Lee Jae-myung did is stabilize the political situation and show them playing for the people's livelihood.

[Anchor]
Aren't about 30 members of the People's Power attending a rally in front of the official residence today? Would this trend of party support have been the driving force for the people's power lawmakers to move?

[Seol Joo-wan]
I think they must have interpreted this as a sub-factor. But if you interpret that as sub-factor, there is a four-character idiom called Haegangbanjo. It's the last time the flame burns before it dies. That's the only thing that can happen. So, I think lawyer Yoon did a good job analyzing the contents of that, but there are quite a lot of people who are opposed to CEO Lee Jae-myung. That's why the existing conservative supporters gathered.

It can be seen that the Democratic Party of Korea has gone to the Democratic Party's supporters and the middle class. If so, can we win the presidential election in the future with this result? I can't win. I don't know when there will be an early presidential election.We can try it in that state. You should never have this idea.

[Anchor]
I think the gathering of pro-Yoon lawmakers like that could be a dilemma at the party leadership level. How do you think those things that continue to rally and make a strong voice will affect public opinion in the future?

[Yoon Ki-chan]
Now, I don't look at the poll numbers and decide what to do. I worry about the opposition's offensive that will come after the impeachment of former President Park Geun Hye in the past. If you look at it back then, in fact, there was a meeting and meeting at that time. There were some people who formed their own party by judging right from wrong, but then did the opposition evaluate it beyond the scope of the power of manipulating state affairs? That's not true. They were all influential in manipulating state affairs. Like now, rebellion criminals and banners are also hung.

So anyway, judicial punishment against the president goes according to judicial punishment. Impeachment goes according to impeachment. And then the party goes back to the Tang age. Because the party is on the people's side anyway and there is a policy stance, but if it is wrapped up like that and the Democratic Party's attack is expected, it collapses itself. Since we've experienced it once, it's not their role or responsibility to the people, so we have no choice but to go out that strong now.

[Anchor]
I'll stop listening to it. So far, we've been with two lawyers, Yoon Ki-chan and Seol Ju-wan. Thank you for talking today.