President Yoon’s legal troubles are far from over, with insurrection charges closing in on the South Korean leader.
Was his martial law order a pure act of governance or a clear act of insurrection?
Let’s turn to lawyer Kim Jisu.
Good morning.
1. Let’s start with the hot potato here.
What President Yoon is arguing is that his order is not subject to judicial review like the exercise of diplomatic power.
Can this argument be justified as he insists?
What’s your take on this? Is that so?
2. Another significant part of his argument is that “a small number of martial law troops” were deployed to maintain order at the parliament, noting that it wasn’t a riot.
What makes such deployment a necessary order? Any legal guidelines?
3. But there are also testimonies from military officers that President Yoon ordered them to drag people out from inside the parliament.
The testimonies will also make the judgement complicated, won’t they?
4. Then let’s say the vote is passed and the case goes to the Constitutional Court.
Doesn’t the Constitutional Court have 180 days to deliberate and rule on Yoon’s future?
5. I remember it didn’t even take 100 days for former presidents Park Geun-hye and Roh Moo-hyun? Was that the case?
6. Watchers say that the process leading up to the verdict could be quite a journey, one, because of how complicated the case is, and two, because it’s not just one or two people involved in the case, right?
7. Is there any way he is not impeached but still faces insurrection charges?
Or is such scenario absolutely impossible?
Thank you so much for your time and your insight this morning.
We appreciate it.
source : https://www.arirang.com/news/view?id=279009
