[Issue Plus] Police "Execution of Arrest Warrant, Under Cooperation"...Controversy over confusion at the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit

■ Host: Lee Yeo-jin, anchor Jang Won-seok
■ Starring: Kim Jae-won, former member of the Supreme Council, Park Won-seok, former member of the Justice Party

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

[Anchor]
Let's take a look at today's Jungkook situation with the two. Kim Jae-won, former supreme council member of the People's Power, and Park Won-seok, former member of the Justice Party, came out. Hello. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit transfers the right to re-execute the president's arrest warrant to the police, and in fact withdrew it, causing controversy all day today. What did you think?

[Kim Jaewon]
It was suspected that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit was a incompetent group and that they had no idea about the criminal law system and just jumped into the investigation to increase their authority. In fact, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has pointed out numerous times since the beginning that the investigation into the insurrection against the president in this case has no right to investigate. Nevertheless, since they have the right to investigate abuse of authority, they said they would investigate the president's rebellion as a related case, but in fact, it was a logically problematic argument from the beginning because the president is not subject to investigation except for rebellion. However, I asked for the case to be transferred to investigate, so I transferred it based on the basis of the Public Offices Act, but shouldn't I investigate it as the next step? However, in order to investigate, I even applied for an arrest warrant because the president was not present. However, even though the Seoul Central District Court has jurisdiction, didn't it go to the Seoul Western District Court for expedient controversy and warrant shopping controversy?

However, because it happened to be the court where two constitutional judges were nominated, there was a dispute over fairness, and the judge went one step further and added the words of exclusion of Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, causing controversy over whether this was a political document or a proper warrant, and it became a situation where the arrest warrant issued was not executed. Then, if it is a normal investigative agency, you have to reapply for the warrant again. And this time, we have to go to the Seoul Central District Court in accordance with the jurisdiction, but we will go to the Western District Court again. That will lead to another dispute over fairness, and even if you try to execute a warrant, didn't you confess that you couldn't execute yourself? For this reason, this investigation became an opportunity to reveal realistic problems such as unfairness and incompetence. I think at this stage, the only way the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit can do it is now to acknowledge their ability and show that they are moving this case to the police.

[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit sent an official notice last night for the execution of the warrant and the police received it this morning. I think you've exposed something that's not discussed well right now, how did you see it?

[Park Won-seok]
First of all, the police reviewed the official letter saying they would entrust the police with the execution of the arrest warrant, and it may raise legal issues, so the police decided to execute it within the existing framework of cooperation, and I think the police have completed the consultation. But I think they'll probably apply for an extension of the warrant because the warrant deadline is until 12 o'clock tonight and midnight. If I apply for an extension of the warrant, I think I will try to execute the arrest warrant again within 7 days or so. Rep. Kim Jae-won also pointed out earlier, but it is true that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has been criticized for its investigation capabilities or experience in the investigation. While the prosecution and the police were speeding up their investigation from the beginning of the emergency martial law rebellion, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit invoked the authority to transfer the case and received the transfer. It is true that the speed of the investigation has slowed down a lot since then. So, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit was suspected not only of the investigation capability but also of the willingness to investigate, but also of this kind, didn't it step down in five hours in the process of executing the arrest warrant?

Of course, the security service's resistance was very strong, but from the police's reaction to the execution of the arrest warrant at the time, it was not such a step back in five hours. And it is true that there was a prior consultation on the obstruction of the execution of the arrest warrant and the security service executives at the scene, but even the prior consultation was not well followed, so it is true that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit had a real will to execute the warrant. However, if we try to transfer this to the police again, there are complicated problems, so we decided to continue the investigation within the framework of cooperation, but since the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is under suspicion, I think we should show a different appearance when we secure recruits again after applying for an extension of the arrest warrant.

[Anchor]
You just mentioned the issue of the will to investigate and execute the warrant, but Yoon Gun-young of the Democratic Party of Korea heard this from an official from the National Assembly. I heard that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit was not willing to execute the warrant, showing sincerity in the execution of the arrest warrant on the 3rd. It seems that the police and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit are creaking.

[Kim Jaewon]
The investigation into Yoon Suk Yeol's president is almost the first since the country's founding. That was the investigation of the president in the case of former President Park Geun Hye, but after the president left office, the investigation took place in earnest. Now, President Yoon Suk Yeol is investigating the declaration of emergency martial law while in office, and the police and the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit are jumping into the case regardless of their capabilities to establish their status as investigative agencies. As a result, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit continues to claim its agency as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police as the police. First of all, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which transfers the case investigation in the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit Act, must then be prepared to make the investigation fair and conduct the investigation strictly. However, if you look at it now, the unfairness of the investigation itself from the beginning is revealed too much. That's why they are distrusting the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, and the opposition party, which is a stakeholder, is not willing to investigate. However, in my view, I have the will to investigate, but I will not be able to investigate because I am too incompetent. That's why the investigation is not working now.

On the other hand, the police now seem to have the right to investigate the crime of rebellion against the president according to the judicial system. However, since the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit transferred the case, it is incompetent, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which has the right to transfer the case, is unable to investigate. So I think we're just criticizing the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit again by the institution's selfishness. Anyway, in this situation, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit transfers the case to the police and makes the police investigate it. We are now judging that it is the only solution. However, he claims that he did not have the will to investigate the case after seeing the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or that he did not actively sanction the security guards at the scene. According to the Presidential Security Act, the presidential security chief can legally set up a security zone and conduct inspections, various body searches, or even use weapons within the security zone. And such an act of security itself is a legal act. So now the police are making a very wrong judgment on this part. If you make an arrest for a red-handed offender, you can have a legal problem of making an illegal arrest for the bodyguards who are acting in law. So, the prosecutor belonging to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit would have pointed out that point and said that the arrest of the current criminal is not possible. However, because he is doing so recklessly now, the law of this country is in a state of complete collapse.

[Anchor]
The public's power is criticizing the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit for its illegal behavior, the Democratic Party of Korea criticizes it for being indecisive and why the arrest warrant is not executed correctly, and both sides are criticized for their right to investigate. Will the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit continue to support its capacity and power to investigate?

[Park Won-seok]
First of all, the controversy over the right to investigate has ended. Although the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the primary and direct right to investigate the civil war case under the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit Act, it was investigated for related crimes such as abuse of authority, and the court recognized that it had the right to investigate it by issuing a warrant anyway. I have no right to investigate even that, and if I deny it like this, I will deny and deny all the warrants issued by the court, and I will refuse to comply. It's hard to relate to this because it's a super-legal idea to ignore the rule of law. Nevertheless, I think there are voices criticizing or pointing out that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, or the court-issued warrant, ended the controversy over investigative rights and even though all such provisions were lifted when executing arrest warrants that recognize exceptions under the Criminal Procedure Act.

That's why I'm telling you that when executing an arrest warrant in the future, it should be different from before. Now, the security service is actually a private soldier of President Yoon Suk Yeol, and in a way, it is showing an attitude that there is a security law above the constitution by refusing even a court-issued warrant in accordance with our constitution and law, but we cannot help but point out that everything the security service is doing is illegal. And according to our security law, the purpose of security is to prevent harm to security targets, but it cannot be seen as to execute court-issued warrants. Of course, any security can be admitted if certain security is provided to achieve the purpose of such security to ensure safety in moving the security target to the investigative agency anyway. But I have to warn you that if you block a court-issued warrant like this with physical force, that could be another type of insurrection in my view that violates our Constitution and laws.

[Anchor]
Hasn't the situation changed now from the 3rd? Even if the validity period of the arrest warrant is extended, it is questionable whether it will be executed, so how do you see it?

[Kim Jaewon]
It won't be easy to enforce. Right now, Rep. Park Won-seok talked about what kind of rebellion he had, and he said he was addicted to rebellion, because whenever he opens his mouth, it's impeachment. However, if you look at Article 20 of our Criminal Code, it is a legitimate act. Acts pursuant to laws, acts due to work, and other acts that do not violate social regulations are stipulated as reasons for the fragmentation of illegality because they are not punished. And it is the security act of presidential security guards in the security zone under the Presidential Security Act. But then the police say they'll arrest the criminals because they're blocking the execution of a warrant, which is possible if a civilian comes and runs in with a club when a police officer is about to arrest a warrant. Then, in the past, former Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Min-seok could not arrest him even if the party officials blocked him when he was arrested or Han Hwa-gap was issued an arrest warrant. This could obviously be a distraction at the time. However, it is now a security act of security guards in the security zone under the Presidential Security Service Act, and it is not illegal to do so. If you claim this, it will eventually become a criminal case when it becomes a problem, and the court will have to decide whether it is an illegal act or not, but at first glance, it is a reason for the illegality to be excluded because it is an act by law.

Nevertheless, I will continue to execute the warrant. Then the Presidential Security Service will have to execute their work, so they will have no choice but to prevent it more strongly. Then, the presidential residence is not such a large area and the access road is not large. However, if there are about 200 bodyguards and block them with vehicles and build double or triple walls, it will be difficult to suppress them easily. And that can make the police's execution of warrants illegal. This is because strictly speaking, only investigators from the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit have enforcement authority. Just signing an agreement between agencies does not give them the right to investigate. Therefore, the execution of the warrant itself will not be easy because there are various problems, I judge like this. In this situation, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit continues to investigate this case to gain the upper hand and position in the agency's interests or their investigative power, this act of not executing such a warrant will be repeated. So far, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has been established for several years, eventually prosecuting one person, prosecutor Son Joon-sung. But he was found not guilty by an appeals court. And I asked for a warrant a few times, but it's all rejected. I mean, it's not an institution that works normally as an investigative agency. That's why it's a problem.

[Anchor]
You mentioned the incompetence of the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, but would the execution of the arrest warrant have changed if the prosecution continued to investigate without transferring to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit or if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit re-transferred to the police?

[Park Won-seok]
Well, it's hard to say this or that on the premise of a family, but anyway, the prosecution notified President Yoon Suk Yeol of the summons 11 days after the civil war incident. It is an objective fact that the pace of the investigation slowed down after the second request for attendance and the case was transferred after the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit transferred the case. In addition, the prosecution also had controversy over its right to investigate at the time. The conditions have not changed with the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit because it was intended to investigate rebellion for crimes related to abuse of authority in the same way as the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit. If the prosecution had investigated, it would have been a little more efficient than what the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit did now because the prosecution has much more manpower and more experience in the investigation. But anyway, it's hard to say definitively because it's an assumption. There seems to be another reason why I can't transfer to the police at this stage. This is because the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit transfers cases to the police again, which could lead to controversy over the right to investigate between the prosecution and the police, so the two sides seem to have agreed to continue the investigation, believing that the controversy over the right to investigate within the current framework has been resolved by a court warrant.

I keep talking about the power of Yoon Suk Yeol or the power of the people or the logic of too much red tape, and the reason why the arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol was issued was because he did not respond to the request of the investigative agency to attend. This has nothing to do with the fear of destroying evidence of escape. That's the principle of our criminal procedure law. Just because you're a president, you can't stand above the constitution and laws. In addition, the court issued a warrant against him, but even rejected the court's warrant, which is unconstitutional and illegal. It has to be fought within the judicial process. First of all, you have to comply with the warrant and argue within the judicial process whether the warrant is a legitimate warrant or not, but a warrant that you arbitrarily do not like is unconstitutional and illegal. If this happens, the president will take the lead in promoting such a society that is super-legal and lawless, and if the public refuses to like the warrant issued by the court, who will take responsibility for it? I don't think public power should be neutralized like this. If it is legal for the security service to do security work under the Security Act, it is legal for the police or the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit to execute the warrant according to the warrant issued by the court. The security service has already been booked for obstructing the execution of special public affairs. I don't think there's anything wrong with arresting a red-handed criminal, and even if it goes to the court later and disputes or disputes between each other, there's little possibility that it's a police offense or a police offense. In that sense, I think law enforcement should be enforced firmly.

[Anchor]
Rep. Kim, would you like to object?

[Kim Jaewon]
However, just because an arrest warrant has been issued, the investigative power debate has not been resolved at all. Then, the head of the court administration came to the National Assembly and confirmed that there seems to be no right to investigate the prosecution for rebellion. However, nothing has been solved about the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, which has the same investigation rights as the prosecution. However, the Seoul Western District Court, not the Seoul Central District Court, which is in principle in charge of arrest warrants, received and issued an arrest warrant late at night, and in the process, it is already being criticized for issuing a warrant by a judge who does not have the authority to issue a warrant. If I want to make a normal judgment and conduct a normal investigation, I will not go to the Seoul Western District Court. Moreover, it is an important case investigating the incumbent president, and no matter how well many people investigate, they will raise various problems. There is no justification for the application by taking an arrest warrant to the Seoul Western District Court. And as I said, the court temporarily judged that the court administration, or the Supreme Court, did not seem to have the right to investigate this case.

That's why you've argued that it's wrong to investigate by an investigative agency that doesn't have the right to investigate, but you're saying you're going to investigate. And the judge who issued the warrant did something that wasn't even lawful. Does writing such an article that excludes Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act have an effect? That's a legal text. Whether or not the law will take effect is applied by the judiciary to the law set by the legislature, but the judiciary does not exclude the law set by the legislature. I said I'd bring this ridiculous warrant and execute it, so of course I refused it. And it is said that if this becomes a problem, you can punish him, so he booked it, but President Yoon also filed criminal charges against the police. Then I can't judge where it's right or wrong. Then, why did you work so hard on such an important investigation? So I ask for an accurate legal settlement of the issue, but if I don't solve it and make it a cooperative copy now, will it all be solved? I don't know why investigative agencies are so light on investigating the president. I don't think investigating neighborhood bullies should do this. And if you keep saying that you have the right to investigate, do you have the right to investigate the theft when a city hall official cracked down on parking and saw the culprit get out of the car and steal it? It didn't work. You shouldn't keep doing this obvious thing.

[Anchor]
Kwon Young-se, chairman of the People's Power Emergency Committee, is insisting that the people's power should continue to investigate arbitrarily, but isn't this only possible if it responds to the summons?

[Park Won-seok]
That's right. I don't know what voluntary investigation means, but I think it's about not being arrested. Anyway, would an arrest warrant have been issued if the investigative agency had responded to the request for attendance? And without arrest and detention, it is a matter of whether or not the investigative agency will seek a warrant, taking into account the seriousness of the crime, concerns about escape and destruction of evidence, and the premise that the investigative agency should not be arrested because he is a sitting president cannot be established. Isn't this a crime of rebellion? It is a crime in which the current president's privilege to remove fluoride is excluded anyway, and even if he has the privilege to remove fluoride, it is not prosecuted. It does not mean that it cannot be investigated. In that sense, I think we are continuing to repeat various deterrence and sophistry. Fundamentally, why don't you respond to the investigative agency's legitimate request for attendance? There is no comment on the power of the people. I don't know about that, but anyway, you're just repeating things like, "The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is too much, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is incompetent," and so on. I don't think it's appropriate. Forty-four members of the People's Power Party went to Hannam-dong's residence today and said they would prevent the execution of arrest warrants, but lawmakers, who are constitutional institutions, will block the execution of court-issued warrants without grounds. It's to sympathize with some kind of obstruction of justice, but I don't know if that's a desirable appearance.

[Anchor]
Now, a key official of the People's Power is considering proposing to Yongsan a plan for President Yoon to be investigated at a third place or residence that can minimize the risk of clashes, such as safe houses, what do you think?

[Kim Jaewon]
But I'm suggesting it, but it's logically wrong. I keep telling you, what kind of deterrence and sophistry are you talking about, and you say you won't be investigated for no reason, but the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit doesn't have the right to investigate. An agency that does not have the right to investigate said it would investigate, so I will not attend there. And what's the point of going to a third place when they say it's wrong to investigate? So this is to clean up the investigative agency. The next thing I said was a voluntary investigation was that former representative Cho Kuk and the representative of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party are in prison, but he was investigated and tried for more than three years. It was handled by the principle of an investigation without detention. Although an arrest warrant was requested, the main reason for the rejection of the warrant was that Lee Jae-myung should be given a chance to fully fulfill his calling without detention because he is the leader of the main opposition party in the court.

Then, the incumbent president claims that it is also a crime of rebellion, but he is also arguing very much about whether or not the crime of rebellion is established. Moreover, CEO Lee Jae-myung is now being tried without detention, not just one case, but various cases, including the Daejang-dong case, Baekhyun-dong case, perjury teacher case, violation of election law, and other cases that brought money to North Korea. But are you going to force an investigation into the current president and a matter that has not been investigated yet? This is a mistake. That's why it should be able to conduct a voluntary investigation, that is, to conduct an investigation and a trial without physical detention, and as the investigative agency said earlier, it will arrest the incumbent president and make the public aware that he is the best investigative agency. As this intention was revealed, there was a warrant request for the first time since the founding of the country that each other requested a warrant and requested a warrant in advance for the case of requesting a warrant. It's wrong because we're doing things this way. So, the only solution to this issue is that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit withdraws from the case investigation and conducts an investigation with a random investigation even if the police investigate it.

[Park Won-seok]
Now, President Yoon, the power of the people, and President Yoon's lawyers say they will decide the investigation agency and the method of investigation themselves. However, if the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit does not have the authority to investigate, it is a matter for the court to judge and decide, and the head of the court administration responded like that by law, but anyway, when the court's working-level judgment on specific warrants and such, didn't you decide that you had the right to investigate and proceed with it? If you don't have the right to investigate later, the prosecution will be dismissed. Isn't that a good thing? To the power of the people or to President Yoon. I reiterate that President Yoon or the power of the people cannot stand above the law. If the investigative agency asks you to attend, it's not that you won't be present because you don't have the right to investigate, but you can attend and argue about that part. If an arrest warrant is issued, you have to respond to an arrest warrant and fight within the judicial process through an arrest suit. Why are you not above the law if you have the right to investigate and you don't have the right to investigate?

It seems to me that President Yoon Suk Yeol still doesn't know what crimes he committed. And so is the voluntary investigation. How can a crime that attempted to stop the constitutional order by sending a gun-carrying martial law force to the National Assembly in the middle of the night be compared on the same lines as the personal crimes of other party representatives, this is a watering down, typical. In that sense, it's been about a month since the civil war incident occurred. Now for about a month, I have to say that those intentions to justify civil war and to justify illegal and unconstitutional emergency martial law, which are far from the opinions of the majority of the people, are becoming very explicit.

[Anchor]
It's a similar topic, but should we change the topic a bit? Didn't the National Assembly's impeachment prosecution decide to withdraw the crime of rebellion under the criminal law among the reasons for the president's impeachment? Therefore, what do you think about the ruling party's opinion that if the crime of rebellion, which is the main reason for impeachment, is withdrawn, the National Assembly should go through the resolution process again?

[Kim Jaewon]
First of all, I'm actually an agent of the Democratic Party. Someone who is the representative of the National Assembly's impeachment. However, the most important fact of the impeachment was that he had committed rebellion. But he demanded to take it out. Then why is that? I think there are two things. First, there may be a considerable legal question of whether the crime of rebellion will be established. I personally think that the declaration of emergency martial law is wrong. But whether it's a crime of rebellion is a completely separate matter. Because the ground requirements for declaring emergency martial law are stipulated in the Constitution and the Constitutional Amendment Act. However, the president judged whether it met the requirements set by the Constitution and martial law, and declared martial law, but from legal judgment, it did not meet the requirements to declare martial law. But it can't be seen that it's a crime of rebellion right away. There is also a provision for rebellion under the criminal law.

However, although there was such a Supreme Court precedent in the past that the nationwide declaration of emergency martial law itself was like a crime of rebellion, it led the forces trying to seize power to intimidate the president and declare emergency martial law. That's why I called it a civil war. Because he took over the government. But when you look at whether the president who has now won power has committed rebellion, it can be seen as another measure. So, in this situation, if the Constitutional Court is to deal with whether or not the crime of rebellion is established, the impeachment trial will have to be reviewed by tightening the requirements. But the first one could have been burdensome. So, I think I decided that I would fight only this, excluding the crime of rebellion, whether it meets the requirements for the declaration of emergency martial law stipulated in the Constitution and martial law law. This will reduce the time for the impeachment trial and ease the room for them to prove themselves, I think they judged it like this. The problem is that if that happens, the crime of rebellion that the ruling party has continued to insist on is established, it is a rebellion, it is a rebellion, it is a rebellion, it has continued, has it not? If the emergency martial law was declared wrong and only impeached, the logic is possible, but if it is said to be a crime of rebellion and passed a National Assembly resolution, it must be re-decided to remove it. I mean, it's wrong.

[Anchor]
I'll tell you the breaking news first for a moment and continue with it. Dong-A Ilbo today requested a warrant to extend the arrest warrant for President Yoon to the Seoul Western District Court, saying, "We cannot confirm the expiration date." In fact, isn't today's execution deadline for arrest warrants expiring at midnight today? In response to this, I said I would extend the expiration date, but I just heard that I re-requested a warrant for an arrest warrant. I'll continue to talk about it. If the impeachment bill, excluding the crime of rebellion, was presented to the National Assembly, the result might have changed, right?

[Park Won-seok]
Well, it's meaningless to say what the result would have been because it's a hypothetical question. Rather, it is highly likely that more votes would have been passed if the impeachment motion, which did not specify the part of the rebellion, had been raised. This is because emergency martial law is a clear violation of constitutional law. At that time, even representative Choo Kyung-ho was in favor of the reason for impeachment, which was similarly organized as an accomplice in the rebellion. There were many MPs who turned the other way around. There are such opinions, so it doesn't mean much to talk about it now because it's a family situation.I think Ma is like this. Anyway, isn't a constitutional trial different from a criminal trial?

The Constitutional Court's status and qualifications as a kind of president are in dispute over whether they conform to constitutional law, and because it is a kind of disciplinary trial, whether or not they committed a crime of rebellion under the criminal law. This is a matter to be dealt with in criminal proceedings, so I am not saying that there was no act of rebellion itself, but that I will deal with whether it is a violation of the Constitution, according to the nature of the Constitutional Court. Even during the impeachment of former President Park Geun Hye in the past, we will focus on the manipulation of state affairs according to the nature of the impeachment trial, excluding bribery and coercion. At that time, the head of the impeachment inquiry was Kwon Sung-dong, the current floor leader of the People's Power Party, and he spoke with the same logic in media interviews. With the same logic that the impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. I think it's logically the same problem as then. There is no stipulated rule on whether the National Assembly should re-elect the impeachment when the reason for the impeachment is changed in that way. It's the discretion of the Constitutional Court and the discretion of the judges, so we can watch.

[Anchor]
Could it be a measure with Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Act in mind? The impeachment trial is suspended during the criminal trial, a clause like this.

[Park Won-seok]
I think that's possible. In the past, when former President Park Geun Hye was impeached, he asked me to postpone the impeachment trial because criminal trials are underway, but I didn't accept it. Looking at President Yoon's side and his lawyer's side, it seems that he intends to continue to postpone or delay the impeachment trial because it is under investigation and criminal trial. So to prevent such intentions and proceed with the impeachment trial quickly, the prosecution seems to have organized it like that, but we can wait and see how the Constitutional Court will judge this on the first hearing day on the 14th.

[Anchor]
I see. I'll cut it short here today. Kim Jae-won, the supreme council member of the People's Power, and Park Won-seok, a former member of the Justice Party. Thank you both.