 ▲ 윤석열 대통령이 11일 오전 서울 종로구 헌법재판소에서 열린 탄핵심판 7차 변론에 출석해 있다. (오른쪽은 윤 대통령 법률대리인 배보윤 변호사) © 뉴시스 |
윤석열 대통령이 11일 '12·3 비상계엄' 관련 수사기관 조사와 증언에 대해 "여러 기관이 달려들어 중구난방으로 조사하고 국회 청문 기록도 혼재돼 있다"고 밝혔다.
윤 대통령은 이날 오전 서울 종로구 헌법재판소 대심판정에서 열린 탄핵심판 7차 변론기일에 출석해 이상민 전 행정안전부 장관 증인신문 직전 발언에서 "검찰이면 검찰 군검이면 군검 고위공직자범죄수사처(공수처)면 공수처 경찰이면 경찰 이렇게 일관된 기관이 조사한 게 아니다"며 이같이 지적했다.
그러면서 "조서끼리도 상충하는 게 많고 홍장원 전 국정원 1차장이나 다른 관계자들 증인 신문을 했지만 그들 조서에 기재된 내용과 실제 증언들은 것과 너무나 거리가 많이 벌어진 것을 많은 사람이 느꼈을 것"이라고 했다.
또 "재판관들도 그렇게 생각하지 않을까 싶다"며 "증거 능력 판단은 재판관이 하더라도 만연히 증거로 채택해 사실인정에 반영하는 건 근본 구조가 검찰 수사처럼 한 기관이 체계적으로 수사했으면 모르겠지만 서로도 맞지 않기에 그런 점을 잘 좀 살펴달라"고 했다.
윤 대통령 법률대리인 윤갑근 변호사는 "헌재법 40조1항에 '헌법재판의 성질에 반하지 않는 범위 내에서 형사소송법을 준용한다고 정했는데 전문법칙이 헌법재판 성질에 반한다는 것이냐"며 "대통령 탄핵심판은 단심이고 결과는 파면 밖에 없다는 점에서 전문법칙을 강화해 적용해야 한다"고 했다.
다른 윤 대통령 대리인 역시 "규정 적용을 제한하는 게 어떻게 헌법 원리에 부합하는 건지 이해되지 않는다"며 "선례가 그렇다고 하거나 평의를 거쳤다는 단순한 이유가 아닌 어떤 법리에 의해 하게 된 건지 피청구인 변호인단 입장에서 꼭 듣고 싶다"고 요구했다. 이에 문형배 헌재소장 권한대행은 "그 부분을 추후 평의해 보겠다"고 답했다.
헌재는 이날 12·3 비상계엄에 가담한 군 수뇌부 등의 검찰진술 내용이 담긴 피의자 신문조서를 증거로 쓸 수 있다는 입장을 재차 확인했다.
정형식 헌법재판관은 "헌재는 탄핵심판이 헌법심판이란 점을 고려해 형사소송법 전문법칙을 완화해 적용해왔고, 이는 헌재법 제40조 1항에 따른 것"이라며 "현재까지 헌재법이 개정된 바 없고 선례도 변함없이 유지되고 있으며 2023년 이상민 (전 행정안전부 장관) 탄핵·안동완 (검사) 탄핵 사건에서도 일관되게 적용돼왔으며 전문법칙 완화 적용에 관해 재판부 평의를 거쳤다"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: "Military, prosecution, public prosecution service, police investigations are chaotic... hearing records are also mixed"
Constitutional Court impeachment trial 7th argument: "There are many conflicts between the reports, and although we questioned Hong Jang-won, 1st Vice Director of the National Intelligence Service, and other related witnesses, there is a huge gap between the contents of the reports and the actual testimonies."
-kihong Kim reporter
President Yoon Seok-yeol stated on the 11th regarding the investigation and testimony of investigative agencies related to the '12/3 martial law' that "many agencies are rushing in and conducting a chaotic investigation, and the National Assembly hearing records are also mixed up."
At the 7th impeachment trial held at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the morning of that day, President Yoon appeared before the testimony of former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min, saying, "If it's the prosecution, it's the prosecution; if it's the military prosecution, it's the military prosecution; if it's the High-ranking Officials' Corruption Investigation Office (Public Prosecutor's Office), it's the Public Prosecutor's Office; if it's the police, it's the police. These are not consistent investigations."
He added, "There are many conflicts between the reports, and even though we questioned former 1st Vice Director Hong Jang-won of the National Intelligence Service and other officials as witnesses, many people must have felt that the contents of their reports and their actual testimonies were very different."
He also said, "I think the judges might think that way too," and "Even if the judges are the ones making the judgment on the ability of the evidence, the fact that it is widely accepted as evidence and reflected in the finding of facts is fundamentally structurally different from the prosecution's investigation, so I wonder if it would be different if one agency systematically investigated it, but they are not compatible with each other either, so I ask you to look into that carefully."
President Yoon's legal representative, attorney Yoon Gap-geun, said, "Article 40, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act stipulates that 'the criminal procedure law shall be applied within the scope that does not conflict with the nature of constitutional trials, but does this mean that the expert rule conflicts with the nature of constitutional trials?" and "Since the impeachment trial of the president is a single trial and the only result is impeachment, the expert rule should be strengthened and applied."
Another representative of President Yoon also said, "I do not understand how limiting the application of the regulation is in accordance with the principles of the Constitution," and demanded, "I really want to hear from the defendant's defense team's perspective on what legal theory it was done, not simply because of precedent or because it was deliberated." In response, Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae of the Constitutional Court said, "We will deliberate on that part later."
The Constitutional Court reaffirmed its position that the suspect interrogation records containing the statements of military leaders who participated in the 12/3 martial law can be used as evidence.
Justice Jeong Hyeong-sik of the Constitutional Court said, “Considering that the impeachment trial is a constitutional trial, the Constitutional Court has relaxed the application of the expert rule of the Criminal Procedure Act, and this is in accordance with Article 40, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act.” He added, “The Constitutional Court Act has not been revised to date, and the precedent remains unchanged. It was consistently applied in the 2023 impeachment cases of Lee Sang-min (former Minister of the Interior and Safety) and Ahn Dong-wan (prosecutor), and the court deliberated on the relaxed application of the expert rule.”
