 ▲ 윤석열 대통령 변호인 윤갑근 변호사가 2024년 12월 30일 오후 서울 마포구 서울서부지법을에 공수처 체포영장 청구에 대한 의견서·변호인 선임계 등을 제출 후 인터뷰하고 있다. © 뉴시스 |
윤석열 대통령 측이 3일 고위공직자범죄수사처(공수처)의 체포영장 집행에 "위헌·위법적 영장 집행"이라며 거듭 불응 방침을 밝혔다. 또 공수처 영장 집행에 협조한 경찰 역시 불법이라며 법적 대응을 예고했다.
윤 대통령 법률대리인단은 이날 오전 낸 입장문에서 "내란죄 수사 권한 없는 공수처 영장 청구는 위법"이라며 "영장 발부는 위헌·위법적 행위로 원천 무효에 해당해 이를 집행하는 건 위법행위"라고 지적했다.
그러면서 "위헌·위법적 영장을 공수처가 집행하고 경찰이 협조했다면 공수처·경찰은 형법 제124조 불법체포죄 범죄행위를 저지른 것"이라며 "집행 과정서 물리적 충돌 발생 경우 공수처·경찰은 독직폭행 및 공무집행방해죄를 자행한 것"이라고 했다.
또 "공수처·경찰은 현행범으로 형사소송법 제212조에 의해 경호처뿐만 아닌 누구라도 그 자리서 영장 없이 체포될 수 있다"며 "위헌·위법적 영장 집행을 통해 확보된 증거는 위법수집 증거로 증거능력을 모두 상실한다"고 지적했다.
윤 대통령 체포·수색 영장에 '형사소송법 제110조·111조 예외'를 적시한 서부지법 이순형 판사 관련해선 "법률 효력을 정지하는 판단.결정은 오직 헌법재판소만이 할 수 있고 그 외는 입법 영역"이라며 '위헌적 행위'라고 지적했다.
이어 "세계 헌정사 어디도 대통령의 비상계엄 같은 국가 긴급권 행사에 내란죄로 처벌한 사례가 없다"며 "대통령이 내란죄란 건 일부 국헌문란 세력 내란몰이"라고 강조했다.
더불어 "(체포영장집행에) 경찰 기동대를 동원한다면 대통령이란 국가권력을 배제하고 국헌을 문란케 할 목적으로 물리력을 동원한 폭동"이라며 "형법 제87조 내란죄 구성요건에 명백히 해당한다"고 지적했다.
윤 대통령 수사 변호인단·탄핵심판 대리인단 공보 역할을 맡은윤 대통령 윤갑근 변호사도 이날 오전 모 방송에 출연해 "불법 무효인 영장 집행은 적법치 않다"며 "현재 헌재·법원에 영장에 대한 이의절차가 진행 중으로 집행 과정 위법 상황에 대해 법적 조치를 할 것"이라고 밝혔다.
아래는 위 기사를 '구글 번역'으로 번역한 영문 기사의 [전문]입니다. '구글번역'은 이해도 높이기를 위해 노력하고 있습니다. 영문 번역에 오류가 있을 수 있음을 전제로 합니다.<*The following is [the full text] of the English article translated by 'Google Translate'. 'Google Translate' is working hard to improve understanding. It is assumed that there may be errors in the English translation.
President Yoon Seok-yeol's side: "The Public Prosecutor's Office executed unconstitutional and illegal warrants...Cooperating police also illegal"
Legal representative group: "The execution of an illegal and invalid warrant is illegal. If the Public Prosecutor's Office executed an unconstitutional and illegal warrant and the police cooperated, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the police committed a criminal act under Article 124 of the Criminal Act, which is an illegal arrest."
-kihong Kim reporter
President Yoon Seok-yeol's side repeatedly announced on the 3rd that they would not respond to the High-ranking Officials' Corruption Investigation Office's (Public Prosecutor's Office) arrest warrant execution, calling it an "unconstitutional and illegal warrant execution." They also announced legal action, saying that the police who cooperated with the Public Prosecutor's Office's warrant execution was also illegal.
In a statement released that morning, President Yoon's legal representative team pointed out that "the Public Prosecutor's Office's request for an arrest warrant, which does not have the authority to investigate sedition, is illegal," and "the issuance of the warrant is an unconstitutional and illegal act, and therefore, executing it is an illegal act."
They also said, "If the Public Prosecutor's Office executed an unconstitutional and illegal warrant and the police cooperated, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the police committed a crime under Article 124 of the Criminal Act, illegal arrest," and "If a physical conflict occurred during the execution process, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the police committed assault and obstruction of official duties."
In addition, he pointed out that "the Public Prosecutor's Office and the police can arrest anyone on the spot without a warrant, not just the Secret Service, according to Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as a flagrant offender," and that "evidence obtained through the execution of an unconstitutional and illegal warrant loses all evidentiary value as illegally collected evidence."
Regarding Judge Lee Soon-hyung of the Western District Court, who wrote "exceptions to Articles 110 and 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act" in the arrest and search warrant for President Yoon, he pointed out that "only the Constitutional Court can make a judgment and decision that suspends the effect of a law, and everything else is in the legislative realm," and that it was an "unconstitutional act."
He continued, "There is no case in the world's constitutional history where the president's exercise of state emergency powers, such as martial law, has been punished for sedition," and emphasized that "the president's sedition is a crackdown on some forces that have disrupted the Constitution."
In addition, he pointed out that "if the police riot squad is mobilized (to execute the arrest warrant), it is a riot that mobilizes physical force with the purpose of excluding the state power of the president and disrupting the Constitution," and "it clearly falls under the elements of the crime of rebellion under Article 87 of the Criminal Act."
President Yoon's attorney, Yoon Gap-geun, who serves as a public relations representative for President Yoon's investigative defense team and impeachment trial representative team, also appeared on a broadcast that morning and said, "The execution of an illegal and invalid warrant is not lawful," and "Currently, the Constitutional Court and the court are in the process of objecting to the warrant, and we will take legal action against the illegal situation during the execution process."
