 ▲ 윤석열 대통령이 2024년 12월 12일 오전 용산 대통령실에서 대국민 담화를 하고 있다. © 대통령실 |
윤석열 대통령 측이 6일 헌법재판소에 신청한 권한쟁의심판·체포영장효력정지 가처분 재판의 신속 진행을 촉구했다.
윤 대통령 수사 변호인단·탄핵심판 대리인단 공보 역할을 맡은 윤갑근 변호사는 이날 "대통령 탄핵 재판엔 신속을 강조하는 헌재가 대통령 신병 관련 중요한 결정 효력을 다투는 사안에 기일조차 지정않고 무관심한 태도를 보이는데 매우 유감스럽다"고 밝혔다.
전날 서울서부지법이 윤 대통령 측 이의신청을 기각한 가운데 내란죄 수사권 없는 고위공직자범죄수사처(공수처)가 청구한 영장의 위헌성에 대한 빠른 본질적 판단을 촉구한 것이다.
앞서 지난달 31일 서부지법 이순형 영장전담 부장판사가 공수처가 청구한 대통령 체포영장·관저 수색영장을 발부하자 윤 대통령 측은 즉각 헌재에 권한쟁의심판·영장 효력정지 가처분을 신청한 가운데 지지부진한 상황 해결을 헌재에 촉구한 것이다.
윤 변호사는 "체포영장이 집행되지 않은 상황서 집행에 대한 이의신청보단 체포영장·수색영장의 위헌 무효 여부를 헌재서 다투는 게 문제의 본질·근원적 해결방안"이라며 "변호인단이 헌재에 제기한 권한쟁의심판·영장효력정지 가처분 재판이 신속 진행되길 강력 촉구한다"고 했다. 전날 서부지법 형사7단독(판사 마성영)은 윤 대통령 측이 지난 2일 제출한 이의신청을 기각했다.
그러면서 "결정문엔 영장을 발부한 이순형 판사가 '법령 해석 범위 내에서 법관이 할 수 있는 행위'를 했다고 설시하며 영장이 위헌·위법이므로 무효란 대리인단 주장을 배척했다"며 "이 결정은 형사소송법 명문 규정·헌법에 정면으로 반해 영장발부 판사를 옹호한 초법적 행위로 법리 오해 잘못을 넘어 의도적으로 법률해석을 왜곡한 것'이라고 지적했다.
또 "명백한 법리오해에 기인한 금지되는 확장해석 내지 유추해석"이라며 공수처가 직권남용죄를 수사하다 내란죄를 발견해 인지해야 하나 이 사건 내란죄는 처음부터 내란죄에 대한 고발장 접수·이첩을 받아 내란죄 수사를 개시한 것인 만큼 수사 과정상 인지한 관련범죄가 아니란 것이다.
이어 "결정문대로라면 공수처는 내란 관련 공범 주소지 중 어느 곳이든 관할법원으로 선택할 수 있어 사실상 전국 어느 법원에 기소해도 무방하다는 것과 다르지 않다"며 "결국 공수처는 영장발부 가능성 높은 법원 쇼핑을 통해 원칙적 관할권을 정한 입법취지를 몰각시킨 탈법행위를 저지른 것"이라고 지적했다.
더불어 서부지법이 '군사상·공무상 비밀 장소는 책임자 또는 기관 승낙 없이는 수색하지 못한다'는 형사소송법(형소법) 조항을 적용하지 않는다고 적시하면서 "법관이 할 수 있는 행위로 입법권을 침해한 위헌적 행위를 한 것으로 볼 수 없다"고 한 것도 문제가 있다고 지적했다.
윤 변호사는 "이 사건은 재판상 구속에 관한 사안이 아닌 수사상 체포에 관한 사안인데 마성영 판사는 재판과정에 적용되는 법조문을 마치 수사과정에 적용되는 법조문인 것처럼 둔갑시켰다"며 "마치 이순형 판사 불법적 행위를 옹호키 위해 법문에 명백히 반하는 궤변적 법논리를 결정문에 기재한 것"이라고 지적했다.
또 "사법부가 자의적 법해석을 통해 사실상 입법부를 대신해 입법을 하고 있는 것으로 삼권분립·법치주의를 위협하는 심각한 위헌·위법행위"라며 "이번 영장청구·발부·이의신청 기각결정을 통해 영장제도에 대한 항고 등 불복 방법이 시급하다는 걸 확인했다'고 했다.
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: "Constitutional Court must swiftly proceed with jurisdiction dispute review and injunction to suspend effectiveness"
Attorney Yoon Gap-geun: "The Constitutional Court is indifferent to the suspension of the validity of the warrant, and the trial date for the injunction to suspend the validity of the arrest warrant has not yet been set... The decision to reject the objection of the Western District Court is an intentional distortion of the interpretation of the law beyond a misunderstanding of the law."
-kihong Kim reporter
President Yoon Seok-yeol's side urged the Constitutional Court to expedite the trial on the dispute of authority and the provisional injunction to suspend the effect of the arrest warrant that they had requested on the 6th.
Attorney Yoon Gap-geun, who served as a public relations officer for President Yoon's investigative defense team and impeachment trial representative team, said on the day, "It is very regrettable that the Constitutional Court, which emphasizes expediency in the impeachment trial of the president, is showing an indifferent attitude by not even setting a date for the case that is contesting the effect of an important decision related to the president's illness."
The previous day, the Seoul Western District Court dismissed President Yoon's objection, and they urged a speedy and essential judgment on the unconstitutionality of the warrant requested by the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (Public Prosecutor's Office), which does not have the authority to investigate sedition.
Earlier, on the 31st of last month, when Judge Lee Soon-hyung of the Western District Court, who was in charge of issuing warrants, issued an arrest warrant for the president and a search warrant for the official residence requested by the Public Prosecutor's Office, President Yoon's side immediately filed a request for a review of the dispute over authority and an injunction to suspend the validity of the warrant with the Constitutional Court, urging the Constitutional Court to resolve the sluggish situation.
Attorney Yoon said, "Rather than filing an objection to the execution of the arrest warrant when it has not been executed, the essence and fundamental solution to the problem is to argue the constitutionality and invalidity of the arrest warrant and search warrant at the Constitutional Court," and "We strongly urge that the trial for the review of the dispute over authority and the injunction to suspend the validity of the warrant filed by the defense team at the Constitutional Court proceed quickly." The previous day, the 7th Criminal Division of the Western District Court (Judge Ma Seong-yeong) dismissed the objection filed by President Yoon's side on the 2nd.
In doing so, he stated that “the decision stated that Judge Lee Soon-hyung, who issued the warrant, performed ‘an act that a judge can perform within the scope of the interpretation of the law,’ and rejected the attorneys’ argument that the warrant was unconstitutional and illegal and therefore invalid,” and pointed out that “this decision is an extra-legal act that defends the judge who issued the warrant in direct violation of the express provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Constitution, and it goes beyond a misunderstanding of legal principles and intentionally distorts the interpretation of the law.”
He also said that “it is a prohibited extended interpretation or analogical interpretation due to a clear misunderstanding of the law,” and that while the Public Prosecutor’s Office should have discovered and recognized the crime of sedition while investigating the abuse of power, the crime of sedition in this case was not a related crime recognized during the investigation process since it began investigating the crime of sedition by receiving and transferring a complaint for the crime of sedition from the beginning.
He continued, “If the decision is correct, the Public Prosecutor’s Office can select any address of the accomplice related to sedition as the court of jurisdiction, which is no different from indicting in any court nationwide,” and “In the end, the Public Prosecutor’s Office He pointed out that “they committed an unlawful act that overrode the legislative intent of establishing the principle of jurisdiction through court shopping, which has a high possibility of issuing a warrant.”
In addition, he pointed out that the Western District Court stated that it does not apply the Criminal Procedure Act (Criminal Procedure Act) provision that “military and official secret locations cannot be searched without the consent of the person in charge or the agency,” and that “it cannot be considered an unconstitutional act that infringes on the legislative power as an act that a judge can do.”
Attorney Yoon pointed out that “this case is not about detention in court, but about arrest in investigation, but Judge Ma Seong-yeong disguised the legal provisions applicable to the trial process as if they were legal provisions applicable to the investigation process,” and that “it is as if he wrote in the decision a sophistical legal logic that clearly contradicts the legal text in order to defend Judge Lee Soon-hyung’s illegal actions.”
He also said that “the judiciary is effectively legislating on behalf of the legislature through arbitrary interpretation of the law, which is a serious unconstitutional and illegal act that threatens the separation of powers and the rule of law.” "This decision to reject the request for, issue, and objection to a warrant has confirmed the urgency of appealing the warrant system and other methods of appeal," he said.
