[On-site video +] "The president claims that 80% of the reasons for impeachment were lost."

[Anchor]
Now, the National Assembly is proceeding with pending questions of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee. Let's go to the scene.

[Joo Jinwoo / People's Power]
In order to advance arbitrarily, there is an aspect that the party has deprived the right to argue. Impeachment is basically a procedure to consider when there is a significant violation of the statute. There are various regulations in the law, so there are admonition regulations that are recommended even if they are not simply followed, and there are laws that deny the effect or deal with minor violations such as fines, even if they are mandatory regulations. And if you violate very important regulations, you can even be punished for criminal punishment. However, if you raise your resolution in the impeachment inquiry and file an impeachment motion for committing a crime that can result in criminal punishment, and now judge only other laws without punishment regulations, this is a complete change in judgment when you first file an impeachment motion. In particular, the Democratic Party of Korea has claimed that the president's actions have violated laws that can lead to criminal prosecution, such as crimes of rebellion, and has explained that to the public.

I've only heard about rebellion all month. There have been a lot of claims related to rebellion against everything, but I think it's hard to be convincing to take it out now. What's more, I'm a little concerned is that the terms of the two justices appointed by President Moon Jae In in the Constitutional Court will pass on April 18. But you can't meet the trial schedule for the judge's term. But if you look at it now, there are parts of the impeachment inquiry that somehow seem to be trying to reduce legal issues. That's why I'm pointing out that I lost fairness and was out of my discretion. I think it's only natural that the other party and the National Assembly, the party that filed the lawsuit, have to agree on this, because it's a kind of impeachment lawsuit that removes the crime of rebellion.

And the biggest problem is that there was prior communication between the Constitutional Court and the impeachment representatives. First of all, from the Democratic Party's point of view, rebellion is the biggest part of the contents that will be subject to impeachment. First of all, it is strange that I suddenly did this alone without the recommendation of the court or communication. The president's lawyers claim that nearly 80% of the reasons for impeachment have been blown away, but the key part is that I can't say what percentage it is, but I think the key part has changed. I took a look at the contents of the 2nd pleading date. This is the part that was recorded and recorded at that time. However, when the Constitutional Judge asked me whether I had decided to reorganize the process of violating the constitution of the preparatory period as a violation of the constitution, I understood that the court organized it as a tangible factual relationship. And I said something important. In order to prevent the constitutional trial from being buried in violation of the criminal law, we will only deal with constitutional violations. This means that if you deal with constitutional violations, the trial will be delayed, so you will only deal with the constitution. But as you can see in that red letter, the experienced lawyer who was in charge of the impeachment is thinking that's what the court recommended us to do. So that's how this lawyer felt. I thought that it would be advantageous for the court not to judge whether it is criminal punishment by treating it as a constitutional trial because the criminal trial takes too long in the process of preparation for pleading, content, and various communication. And please show us the next page. If you look at this, the Constitutional Court will sort it out right after the words of this impeachment representative.

It is intended to withdraw claims that a series of martial law-related acts are a crime of rebellion, abuse of authority, obstruction of the execution of special public affairs, and criminal law, and the impeachment representatives claim that they are actually withdrawing them now. I don't know what kind of communication there was, but didn't you convince the public that the core content of the impeachment inquiry is a violation of the criminal law and that's criminal punishment for those subject to impeachment, in other words, a matter of imprisonment? So, the Constitutional Court should judge this part, but it can be sufficiently judged according to the commentary of the Constitutional Court or existing laws. So, please clarify your position on this part.
I think the National Assembly should make a new resolution on this part, especially on impeachment, what do you think?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
As you know well, what has been done and shown is what has come from the open preparation period. And of course, I give you the principle that the referee should be fair. And I would like to ask you to keep an eye on the final conclusion on what you just said because the court will of course make it. And such a claim that the claimant did such a thing at the request of the claimant and the court's recommendation is absolutely not true, so please cast doubt on that point. And that's the claimant saying how the claimant says the claimant, isn't it? So, I know that it came out in the process of saying that. And I understand that all such claims that you just mentioned are also being made by the respondent. And this issue is quite controversial, and what you just said is being dealt with as a very important part of psychology. So, please keep an eye on that until the final judgment comes out from the court.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee]
Since there is something related to me in the questioning process of Representative Joo Jin-woo, I will make a personal statement and do it. I saw Joo Jin-woo's remarks live that there was a vice-principal with the court when I named my name at the Special Committee on National Assistance in the morning, so that would raise public doubts. There was no prior communication at all. And I have never met or talked to any of the Constitutional Court justices on the phone.

But why would he make such a statement, I guess in my own way, there was a process of organizing the issue during the first preparation period of the Constitutional Court. I don't remember exactly, but I know that the claimant's side should decide whether to commit rebellion or the constitution for the act of rebellion. Therefore, our legal representatives voted for the impeachment motion as an act of rebellion, so if we consider it as a crime of rebellion, the Constitutional Court will actually hold a constitutional trial, so the factual content will remain and be judged not as a crime of rebellion, but as a constitution for the act of rebellion. So I actually said that I'm withdrawing it. I've been thinking about whether there was a suggestion or not. In light of the conversation between the judges of the Constitutional Court and our legal representative during the first preparatory period, it would be better to organize whether to make such a part as the Constitution or as a crime of rebellion. That's why I know that the legal representative used that expression. In addition, remarks such as those made by the judges, the claimants or the respondents, or conspired to do something, are an act of insulting the judges of the Constitutional Court. So I'd like to say that I should refrain from doing that. The impeachment motion states that it is unconstitutional, illegal emergency martial law, and civil war criminal acts of civil war. Second, it's a violation of the Constitution and the law.

However, during the first preparation period, the judges of the Constitutional Court talked with our claimants at the preparation period and summarized the issues into four categories. 1, martial law announcement. 2, martial law commander proclamation No. 1. 3, Obstruction of parliamentary activities, such as the entry of the military and police into the National Assembly's blockade and the requirement to lift martial law. 4, Search and seizure by the NEC without a warrant for mobilizing troops. It's a summary of the issues with these four issues. This part is not what the claimant wants to do, and the issue is whether to do this by the judgment of the judges of the Constitutional Court, and it is the process of consultation and agreement like this, and the constitutional judges do not listen to everything as requested by the claimant, right? So if you look closely at the 1st and 2nd preparation dates, there is no doubt about this. I think so, and please refrain from saying that lawmaker Joo Jin-woo had any communication with Chung Cheong-rae, and if you want to claim it, please do it outside where immunity is not allowed. I'll immediately file a complaint for spreading false information. I'll ask you the next question. It's not a threat, it's a recommendation. Rep. Park Kyun-taek, ask questions.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Minjoo Party member]
Let's watch a video related to lawmaker Joo Jin-woo's remarks. This is the content of the Constitutional Court's preparatory hearing, and I want to show it to you in person. Please turn on the video.

[Interview]
Would you like to talk about that?

[Interview]
Yes, I understood that the court organized it as a tangible factual relationship.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
Our Constitutional Court Secretary-General, is there anything wrong with the preparation process for that hearing?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
It's exactly what you saw.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
After all, the Constitutional Court's impeachment court is a constitutional court that checks whether high-ranking officials violate the constitutional order, and it is an administrative court that decides whether to dismiss them, not a criminal court that determines whether individual crimes are established or punishment, right? Is it right?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
As you can see, please understand...

[Park Kyun-taek / Democratic Party lawmaker]
Am I right? It's not a criminal court, it's a constitutional court.

[Kim Jung-won / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
It's a Constitutional Court court that makes an impeachment trial.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
Impeachment agents have never made any changes to the original draft of the impeachment resolution. But there are forces that talk as if they were arbitrarily manipulated. And the facts of the impeachment remain unchanged. Is it correct that the facts of the act of rebellion, such as the invocation of unconstitutional emergency martial law and the occupation of constitutional institutions, all of which are subject to judgment? It's as written in it, right?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
As you can see, the referee is in progress.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
So, you didn't alter or change the contents of the resolution submitted by the National Assembly, did you?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
I...

[Park Kyun-taek / Democratic Party lawmaker]
You haven't heard of it. In the end, all the facts remain the same and the original draft has not been changed, but it is about reorganizing the law around constitutional violations in relation to legal evaluation, and it is a type of content that says that he will not insist on what will be dealt with in the criminal court here, to put it simply, that the lawsuit will be operated efficiently according to the nature of the trial. I think it's a very good way to conduct litigation, so would it be right to nitpick with this? What do you think, Chief?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
Now, the respondent is talking about the respondent's position on the issue. So, I know that the court will make a judgment on that part.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
Kwon Sung-dong, the floor leader of the National Power Party, is raising the issue with this, and there is a precedent that when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he pushed for the impeachment of President Park Geun Hye and carried out his work in the same way as now, but in a stronger way, and the Constitutional Court cited the decision to dismiss him. Do you know that?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
an incident that happened before .

[Park Kyun-taek / Democratic Party lawmaker]
That there was the same precedent in the Park Geun Hye presidential case...

[Kim Jung-won / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
I won't say anything about that.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
I'm asking if you know there's a precedent. Don't you know this precedent? The fact that there's a precedent for the same thing in the past?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
I understand what you mean now, Senator. This is now related to the ongoing incident...

[Park Kyun-taek / Democratic Party lawmaker]
No, I'm not asking the director about the plan, but I'm asking about the precedent that floor leader Kwon Sung-dong handled his work in the same way as he did during the Park Geun Hye presidency.

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
Since you're a lawyer, isn't this a different case? What I'm saying about it in another case...

[Park Kyun-taek / Democratic Party lawmaker]
Can't you even say there's a precedent?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
I don't think it's appropriate. Please understand.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
No matter how afraid the respondent's offensive is, shouldn't you say what you have to say objectively?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
Aren't there disputes over objective facts right now?

[Park Gyun-taek / Democratic Party member] Does that mean there was no such thing as ∀? Do you mean that the current Kwon Seong-dong is attacking the past Kwon Seong-dong, but you don't know the contents?

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
I know what the discussion is going on right now.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
Anyway, in front of the Taegeukgi unit, those who deny the crime of rebellion have cleared the crime of rebellion, bragging about it again in front of the Taegeukgi desecration unit, arguing against the National Assembly and the Constitutional Court, and even making unfounded personal attacks against the Constitutional Court, isn't this unacceptable? Whether through a spokesperson to respond properly, it seems necessary to properly present the Constitutional Court's position and clarify its position. I think you're being too evasive.

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
The Constitutional Court is trying to protect fairness.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
I think you can just tell me the facts as they are.

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
I see.

[PARK GYUN TAG / Democratic Party lawmaker]
And our director may know that when the Yoon Suk Yeol began to arrest the suspect, the stock price went up and when the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit gave up in five hours, the stock price fell again and the economic situation worsened. And is it Fitch now, the company that is rating international says that the later the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial of Yoon Suk Yeol, the risk of a credit rating decline. I hope our chief will assist us so that the trial can proceed quickly.

[Kim Jungwon / Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court]
Yes, I'll take a good look at it.

[Jeong Chung-rae / Chairman of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee]
Thank you for your hard work. Next, Rep. Kwak Kyu-taek, ask questions.