<January 6 Constitutional Briefing>

<January 6 Constitutional Briefing>

- Judgment of additional designation after proceeding with the 5th hearing date
- Proceeding with the harmonious argument, holding a weekly review
- National Assembly Claims Debate on Jan. 22
- There is no stipulated regulation on whether the National Assembly needs a re-decision in the process of changing the grounds for impeachment... to be judged by the court
- Withdrawal of the criminal law violation for insurrection, the court never recommended it

1. a twice-weekly hearing

The most important part of today's Constitutional Court briefing is that it will decide on additional designation after the fifth hearing date and hold a consultation once a week. It means that it will proceed as designated until the fifth hearing, but if it is deemed that there is no need to proceed with additional arguments, it can be concluded in the fifth round.

The council is like a "judge meeting" in that all judges gather to discuss, but its function is different. The judges' meeting discusses the overall operation of the Constitution and the proceedings of the trial, but the council is a meeting where legal discussions and judgments on the contents of the judgment are made.

During the impeachment trial of President Park Geun Hye, discussions were held every day, except for holidays, during the hearing period, and after the closing of the hearing on February 24 until the sentencing day on March 10. During the 90-day hearing, more than 60 meetings were held. Arguments were held 2-3 times a week.

The fact that Yoon's impeachment is set twice a week for pleading and once a week for deliberation seems to reflect the judgment that the issue is simpler than the impeachment of the Park Geun Hye, even though it is a principle to proceed quickly.

2. January 22nd hearing date for National Assembly power dispute trial

The competent dispute trial dealing with the unconstitutionality of the acting president's appointment of justice Ma Eun-hyuk and the provisional disposition of the appointment of justice was expected to take place before or after the first hearing date of Yoon's impeachment on January 14, but it was set to be a little late on the 22nd. Since the Constitutional Court has said several times that it will proceed quickly on this matter, it is expected that the judgment will be made immediately after the first hearing date.

As a result, the prospect (and hope) that Yoon will start hearing by completing the nine-member system before the first hearing on his impeachment on Jan. 14 is misguided. However, the decision will likely be made by the nine-member system.

3. withdrawal of a criminal violation of the criminal law for rebellion

He virtually dismissed Yoon and national power claims that the impeachment motion should be re-decided due to changes in the reasons for the prosecution, and denied claims that the Constitutional Court recommended a change in the part of the rebellion.

After the controversy over the rebellion, some of the Democratic Party argued that "it was recommended by Judge Jung Hyung-sik," but it was confirmed that there was no such content in the first preparation period, so there was a recommendation through a non-trial channel, but it was also not.

I think the claim of "recommendation by the court" is due to the lower part of the National Assembly's lawyer's remarks while discussing the rebellion in the second preparatory period.

(Formula)
And you decided to reorganize the criminal law violation claim as a violation of the constitution last preparation date, right?
(Attorney)
[Voiceover] Yes, I understand that the court has organized it as a tangible factual relationship, so the factual relationship that violated the criminal law and the factual relationship that violated the Constitution is actually the same. (Overstatement) I think that's what the court recommended us to do.

Here, the argument that "the withdrawal of the rebellion is the recommendation of the court" seems to have been made because "the court recommended it to us," which does not mean the rebellion, but what Judge Jeong Hyeong-sik recommended in the first preparation period to exclude the input of military forces No. 5 from the five issues in the prosecution and to deal with them in other issues.

It was the recommendation of the court to reduce and organize the issues for rapid progress, and it is interpreted as saying that it would exclude the violation of the criminal law of civil war according to its purpose.

The fact that the change in the reason for the prosecution is not a matter required for a re-decision by the National Assembly and is a matter judged by the court has already reduced the reason for the prosecution from 5 to 4 in this case, but added the 'Arrest of Judges' section and increased it back to 5 in this case. This was decided to do so at the discretion of Judge Lim Ki. Therefore, it seems that there is no need for a re-decision by the National Assembly because the part excluding the violation of the civil war criminal law has already been decided to do so at the second pleading date.

During the impeachment of the Park Geun Hye, there were 13 reasons for prosecution when the prosecution was decided, but it was reduced to 5 through the process of arranging issues in the preparatory period, and in the process, violations of the criminal law, including bribery, were withdrawn, but there was no demand for a re-decision by the National Assembly.

Insurrectionists claim that "there was no problem during the Park Geun Hye because there was no disagreement between the ruling and opposition parties, but now there is a disagreement and it must be re-decided." However, after passing the National Assembly's resolution, you will not be accepted. As in the case of the Park Geun Hye trial, the decision of the court to change the reason for prosecution through the settlement of issues is determined by the judgment of the court during the impeachment hearing, not by the National Assembly.