■ Host: Anchor Jeong Ji-woong
■ Starring: Lawyer Son Jeong-hye
* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN NewsNOW] when quoting.
[Anchor]
Presidential Chief of Staff Jeong Jin-seok demanded President Yoon's defense rights in a public appeal. The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the police, and the security service held a three-way meeting ahead of the execution of the second arrest warrant for President Yoon. Let's talk about this with lawyer Son Jung-hye. Welcome. Chief of Staff Jeong Jin-seok's appeal states that President Yoon can now review a third place or a visit survey schedule. President Yoon's position is that he has not discussed it. Is there no legal problem with conducting a third place or a visit survey?
[Son Jung-hye]
possible. However, it is difficult to say whether it will be practically coordinated effectively. If the information comes out in the form of opinions by lawyers, not from the position of chief of staff Jeong Jin-seok, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has some room to coordinate the investigation in a third place or other way, but the current position of lawyers and the president will not be explicitly investigated arbitrarily. So prosecute or seek an arrest warrant. Since it is interpreted as an intention not to respond to police or airlift investigations, this is actually an opinion that is close to the appeal of Chief of Staff Jeong Jin-seok, I think we should look at it like this. Since the president immediately refuted the appeal after it was published, it is interpreted that practical consultations on this content are difficult to proceed.
[Anchor]
Then, even if the official opinion is delivered to the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, it is unlikely that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit will change its position in the current situation, right?
[Son Jung-hye]
The president is currently suspended from office. The chief of staff is not in a position to express President Yoon's opinion as an agent. Opinions related to investigations related to criminal cases should be submitted in the form of lawyers' opinions, but the related form is not suitable, and because it is an opinion that is unilaterally disclosed without practical coordination, it has no legal effect. Therefore, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit has not confirmed any additional position regarding this because no contact has been made to us. Therefore, if the president or the president's lawyer considers voluntary attendance as an actual voluntary investigation rather than a summons by execution of an arrest warrant, it is a principle to contact the investigative agency directly.
[Anchor]
This morning, the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit, the police, and the security service held a three-way meeting. I think we only checked each other's differences. I don't think anything special has been told.
[Son Jung-hye]
Despite the expected situation, I think the police's mediation efforts between the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the Security Service are an act of procedural justification to go through the variables that may nevertheless occur and the final consultation process to prevent unpleasant things. Even if it is not a formal act, it is meaningful that at least the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police made an attempt to coordinate our work to eliminate the possibility of a collision, but so far, the security service seems to have only confirmed that it is not willing to comply with the execution of the arrest warrant.
[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit is still in the position that it will execute the arrest warrant as it is. In your opinion, when do you think the arrest warrant will be executed?
[Son Jung-hye]
Actually, it seems reasonable to start today and tomorrow. The preparations have been completed, and the president's office has already explored whether to indirectly and directly respond to the voluntary investigation or whether there will be coordination in the summons investigation. Until this morning, the presidential office expressed its opinion that it would not respond even if it was a third method of investigation, so it was judged that the voluntary investigation would be difficult to summon arbitrarily. As long as the human and material preparations necessary for execution are completed, it is reasonable to start execution, so I think it will be ready tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. However, since the validity period is long enough, there is still room for the president's office and the president's office to adopt a voluntary recall method, not an actual compulsory execution, if we say we will respond to the investigation.
As such, from the president's point of view, shouldn't the lawyers be more actively persuaded at this point in the form that they will voluntarily go out rather than being summoned and investigated by the public authority in front of the whole nation? Because there are already opinions that the chief of staff should bypass the execution of the arrest warrant on his own, so I would like to say that it should be actively considered.
[Anchor]
Reports continue to emerge that the Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit's plans have been leaked. So in this situation, what do you think about the possibility of revising the execution schedule of arrest warrants or the plan itself? It appears that
[Son Jeonghye]
is missing. Various specific circumstances are already bound to be disclosed through the media or depending on various movements. The disclosure is not likely to change because it has the effect of weakening the security's will to engage in armed conflict by informing them that they are preparing like this, and because there was a strategy to induce them to respond to the president's arbitrary subpoena, but the problem is that the security service is aware of all these preparations and is concerned about the possibility that they might have been more aggressive in preparing them. As such, the police are warning that major command units of the security service can be legally responsible for obstruction of justice or civil lawsuits, and it remains to be seen whether they will actually collide despite the warning, but I think the security service discussed with the police and the security service today that there was nothing unpleasant about it.
[Anchor]
The Senior Civil Servant Corruption Investigations Unit and the police said they were also considering a long-term war of about two nights and three days. It's not common for an arrest warrant to be executed this long, is it?
[Son Jung-hye]
I think it's the first time in our country's history. Of course, the timing and the manpower are the same. It's unprecedented to use hundreds, or nearly 1,000, to execute one arrest warrant. There won't be any in the future. In addition, there is no precedent for investigative power to prepare for two nights and three days and three nights and four days with execution of one person, so that various items, items for hot weather, and diapers are packed. As such, I think we have no choice but to interpret it as a very serious situation. All of this seems to be preparation for an investigation, and in order to investigate the crime of rebellion, we have to ask whether it is reasonable to put so much manpower and state property into the arrest. Therefore, I think it is necessary to change the president's forward-looking position.
[Anchor]
The longer the confrontation, the higher the possibility of armed conflict or its level, what do you think?
[Son Jung-hye]
There is a possibility that some personnel may resist forcefully when they are cornered or have no other means, but if it is long, it is highly likely that these acts will be judged as illegal over time at the security office, and if there is a risk of self-punishment, not only me, but also my colleagues, workers, and bosses are on the verge of being punished, there is a possibility that wise and quick-judged people will internally persuade them not to do this.
Because not only are we not receiving additional support from other places now, but there may be situations in which it is difficult to procure various supplies, and especially families are very concerned about this, so there is a possibility that some people passively resist not to cooperate with this through their own concerns. In the case of a public official, if the suspended sentence is confirmed, it constitutes a loss of qualification as a public official who must retire.
If someone experiences damage from various diagnoses such as injuries due to obstruction of the execution of special public affairs, only imprisonment for a limited period is prescribed, so there will be a deep concern about whether there is a legitimate benefit at the expense of all of them.
[Anchor]
If armed confrontation continues, the security service may be a little more disadvantageous, you said this analysis, and handcuffs can also be used to execute President Yoon's arrest warrant, and this review is also being made. I heard there is also a separate guideline that the Airborne Division can use the equipment only at a minimum level when arresting?
[Son Jung-hye]
According to the Criminal Procedure Act, the National Police Agency, and guidelines related to job execution investigations, tools that can be used while executing an arrest warrant are defined as artillery ropes and handcuffs. It is stated that such binding tools can be used to the minimum extent necessary, and if the suspect is concerned about causing physical harm or running away, it can be used like this, so if there is no fear of inflicting physical harm or the president is not concerned about running away, I think it would be a principle not to wear a rope and handcuffs to respect the president's courtesy, but I hope that it will be inevitable if various physical hazards occur or if it is difficult to properly execute and resists by strong means.
[Anchor]
The police have summoned Kim Shin, the head of the family, the head of the security office, for the first time, but no news has been received that he was present. It seems that he/she is still absent, and as such, hard-liners at the security office continue to show signs of refusing to comply with the police's summons. How will this part affect future investigations now?
[Son Jung-hye]
I think there are many factors that will be very disadvantageous in determining the nature of their crimes, whether there is a crime, and in the sentencing investigation. Despite the fact that a public official did not cooperate despite receiving several summonses from investigative agencies in violation of the current law and warned about the illegality to the extent that they demanded the summons, if another illegal act occurred in the second execution, he was evaluated as having acted repeatedly, and the quality of the crime is not good because there is no awareness of the illegality. In such a case, there is room for serious obstruction of public affairs and a very high possibility of criticism, so there is room for it to be very unfavorable under the sentencing regulations.
Therefore, when the security chief was notified of the third summons, he was arbitrarily investigated by responding to the summons, and the fact that he was faithfully investigated several times was obstruction of the execution of special public affairs and abuse of authority, which could constitute a huge crime for public officials. I think it's a situation where you have to have that sense of crisis.
[Anchor]
In the case of the police, they said that if they continue to prevent the execution of arrest warrants, they can be arrested as current offenders. If security officials are arrested as current offenders, what level of punishment should they see?
[Son Jung-hye]
In the case of obstruction of the execution of special public affairs, the obstruction of the execution of public affairs is currently less than five years, but it is subject to up to one-half, so it is subject to imprisonment or imprisonment for up to seven years and six months. In the process, even if a physical fight occurs and a diagnosis is made for more than two to three weeks, it can be sentenced to more than three years in prison for injury, so the most important thing for a public official is whether he or she is sentenced to more than probation. That's because it's a very important factor in whether or not to remain a public servant. Therefore, if you repeat illegal activities several times like this, you may get more than probation.
If so, not only is there a very fatal problem in maintaining the position of public servant, but a lot of financial investment has been put into preventing or preventing such illegal activities. Even if you claim the right to indemnify this civilly, it's quite a large amount. Of course, it can be argued that we were forced to do this at the behest of our superiors, but in our law, illegal orders must be rejected, so there is a possibility that the reasons for the fragmentation of responsibility or the fragmentation of illegality are not applicable.
As such, it is reasonable to reject this order even if someone made such an order due to a serious misjudgment. And I can tell you that some people actively participate in the order, while others passively participate, and since this is a very important factor in sentencing standards, individual judgment is very important.
[Anchor]
We will also briefly talk about the impeachment trial of President Yoon's Constitutional Court. It's in a moment. The first hearing date of President Yoon's impeachment trial is scheduled at 2 p.m., but President Yoon is filing a number of objections, saying that the hearing date is unfair. Wouldn't these things work against you later on?
[Son Jung-hye]
Once you do the trial, when both parties make reasonable claims and make credible claims, their arguments become more credible and more likely to win. Most of the respondents' objections that the president claims are difficult to accept in the Constitutional Court. Even if an objection is filed, there is a very high possibility of dismissal, dismissal, dismissal, and dismissal. If dismissal, dismissal, dismissal, and dismissal are piled up when making such a claim, it is possible to consider whether the respondent's side makes reasonable claims in accordance with the law. Overeating claims that are unlikely to be cited can be interpreted as abuse of litigation cases or abuse of claims, but isn't it aimed at delaying the process for many lawyers to make such claims even though they know it? Isn't it an argument that is unlikely to be accepted like this to delay the procedure, not a substantive reason? In that respect, it is not only good for public opinion, but there is room for interpretation as a president who is not willing to defend the constitutional order and does not faithfully judge the constitutional judge.
[Anchor]
I see. I'll stop listening to it. I was with lawyer Son Jung-hye. Thank you for today.
※ 'Your report becomes news'
[Kakao Talk] YTN Search and Add Channel
[Phone] 02-398-8585
[Mail] social@ytn. co. kr
[Copyright holder (c) YTN Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution and use of AI data prohibited]