 ▲ 한덕수 국무총리가 지난 19일 서울 종로구 헌법재판소 대심판정에서 열린 국무총리 탄핵심판 1차 변론 기일에서 발언하고 있다. © 헌법재판소 |
20일 윤석열 대통령 헌법재판소 탄핵심판 10차 변론 증인심문에서 한덕수 국무총리는 "12·3 비상계엄 직전 국무회의는 통상 국무회의와 달랐고 형식·실체적 흠결이 있었다"고 밝혔다.
이날 오후 서울 종로구 헌재 대심판정에서 열린 10차 변론기일 첫 번째 증언에 나선 한 총리는 국회 측 대리인단의 '계엄에 찬성하던 사람이 있었나'란 질문에 "회의에 참석한 국무위원 모두가 계엄 선포를 걱정·만류했다"며 이같이 밝혔다.
또 지난달 23일 헌재 4차 변론에 출석했던 김용현 전 국방장관이 '계엄 직전 국무회의에서 선포에 찬성하는 사람도 있었다'고 진술한 것 관련해 "제 기억엔 전혀 그렇지 않다"고 부인했다.
'비상계엄령은 헌법·계엄법에 따라 국무회의 심의를 거쳐야 하는데 그렇지 않았다'는 지적엔 "국무회의인지 아닌지는 수사·사법 절차를 통해 판단돼야 한다고 이야기해 왔다"고 답했다.
'당시 국무회의에서 이상민 전 행정안전부 장관이 김 전 장관에게 언론사 단전·단수 문건을 받는 것을 본 사실이 있는지'에 대해선 "보지 못했다"고 했고, 해당 문건을 자신도 받았는지 여부엔 "없다"고 답했다.
'계엄 직전 국무회의를 개최하려 했던 건 계엄을 막고자 했던 것'이란 자신의 검찰 피의자 신문조서 내용에 대해선 "대통령이 국무회의를 소집하려 했는지는 대통령 계획이라 정확하게 몰랐다"며 "여러 의견을 들어봤으면 해서 건의했고, 중요한 건 국무위원들이 좀 모여 대통령을 설득해 줬음 좋겠다고 하려 했던 것"이라고 했다.
'한 총리 본인도 다른 국무위원에게 연락을 했는지'란 질문엔 "기억 못했는데 수사 받을 때 '당신이 누구에게 연락한 적 있다'고 물어 전화를 찾아보니 맞았다"며 "새로 오도록 연락한 게 아닌 '빨리 와 대통령을 설득하자는 그런 마음에서 '어디쯤 와 계신지' 아마 확인하고 알아보는 그런 것"이라고 설명했다.
윤 대통령 측 윤갑근 변호사의 '야당의 '줄탄핵' 문제' 거론 관련해선 "국민 눈높이에서 봤을 때 정말 중대 범죄를 저지른 사람이고 헌법·법률을 위반해(했다 판단 됐을 때) 탄핵해야 한다"고 답했다.
한 총리는 "(남은 국무위원 중) 두 사람만 일이 있어 아웃(직무정지)돼 버리면 국무회의가 없어진다"며 "제가 정치권에도 '이 정도 심각하다'고 몇 번 말씀드렸는데 아직도 특별한 조치가 없어 대단히 유감"이라고 했다.
'야당 주도로 마련된 감액 예산안이 '극단적 입법독재 전형'이란 평가가 나온다'란 질문엔 "다수의 일방적 폭주"라고 답했다.
한 총리는 '야당이 발목잡은 법률을 꼽아달라'고 묻자 에너지 3법(국가기간전력망확충법·고준위방폐장특별법·해상풍력특별법), 반도체 업계를 주 52시간제 예외로 보는 '반도체특별법' '형법상 간첩죄 개정(간첩법)' 등을 꼽았다.
이어 "태반은 국가 안보·경제 발전·국민들 사회적 복지 등 청년들 미래를 좀 더 낫게 만들고자 하는 것"이라며 "정치권이 뭔가 앞장서 하지 않으면 분명 우리나라 미래는 없다 확언할 수 있다"고 했다.
또 쌀값 급락시 초과 생산량을 의무 매입하는 '양곡관리법'과 동행명령 범위를 확대한 '국회 증감법'(국회에서의 증언·감정 등에 관한 법률 일부개정법률안) 등 재의요구권(거부권) 행사에 대해 거듭 당위성을 강조했다.
한 총리는 "재의요구란 건 견제·균형을 통해 최선의 지혜·공익을 추구하도록 설계된 하나의 자유민주주의 제도"라며 "저희가 지금까지 행사한 재의요구는 과거 정부가 행한 재의요구를 합친 것보다 많지 않나 생각 드는데 앞으로 좀 더 헌법·법률·미래를 위한 국회 입법·협치가 꼭 필요하다"고 했다.
한편 이날 출석한 윤 대통령은 한 총리 출석 전에 퇴정한 가운데 윤 변호사는 "일국 대통령과 총리가 같은 심판정에 앉아 계시고 총리께서 증언하는 것을 대통령이 지켜보는 게 좋지 않고, 국가 위상에도 좋지 않다 해서 양해 구하지 않고 퇴정했다"며 "변호인과만 상의하고 퇴정했는데 그 점 양해 말씀드린다"고 재판부에 설명했다.
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.
Constitutional Court 10th Argument, Han Deok-su: "The State Council meeting on the day of martial law was different from the usual meeting"
Witness examination of Han Deok-soo, Hong Jang-won, and Jo Ji-ho... Han "I did not see former Minister of Public Administration and Security Lee Sang-min receive documents on the media outlets' power cutoff and water cutoff from former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, and I myself have not received any documents."
-kihong Kim reporter
On the 20th, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo stated during the 10th hearing of the impeachment trial of President Yoon Seok-yeol at the Constitutional Court, "The Cabinet meeting immediately before the December 3 emergency martial law was different from a regular Cabinet meeting and had formal and substantive flaws."
In the first testimony of the 10th hearing held at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul that afternoon, Prime Minister Han stated, "All the Cabinet members who attended the meeting were worried about and discouraged the declaration of martial law," in response to the National Assembly's representative group's question, "Was there anyone who supported martial law at the Cabinet meeting?"
He also denied the statement made by former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, who attended the 4th hearing at the Constitutional Court on the 23rd of last month, that "there were people who supported the declaration at the Cabinet meeting immediately before martial law," saying, "I don't remember that at all."
In response to the claim that “Martial law should have been deliberated by the State Council according to the Constitution and Martial Law, but it was not,” he responded, “I have been saying that whether or not it is a State Council meeting should be determined through investigation and judicial procedures.”
In response to the question, “Did you see former Minister of Public Administration and Security Lee Sang-min receive a document from former Minister Kim regarding the cutoff of press power and water supply at the State Council meeting at the time?” he said, “I did not see it,” and in response to the question about whether he himself received the document, he said, “No.”
Regarding the content of his interrogation record as a suspect by the prosecution, which states, “The intention to hold a State Council meeting right before martial law was to prevent martial law,” he said, “I did not know exactly whether the president intended to call a State Council meeting because it was the president’s plan,” and “I suggested it because I wanted to hear various opinions, and the important thing was to say that it would be good if the State Council members gathered together and persuaded the president.”
When asked whether Prime Minister Han himself contacted other State Council members, he said, "I didn't remember, but when I was being investigated, they asked me, 'Who did you contact?' and when I looked up the phone, it was correct," and explained, "They didn't contact me again to come, but they probably checked and found out where I was, with the intention of 'quickly coming and persuading the President.'"
Regarding the issue of 'the opposition party's 'rope impeachment'' brought up by President Yoon's lawyer Yoon Gap-geun, he said, "From the perspective of the public, he is someone who committed a serious crime and should be impeached (when judged to have violated the Constitution and the law)."
Prime Minister Han said, "If only two (of the remaining State Council members) are out (suspended from their duties) because of something, there will be no State Council meeting," and "I have told the political world several times that 'it is this serious,' but there has been no special action taken yet, which is very regrettable." When asked, "The budget cut bill led by the opposition party is being evaluated as a 'typical example of extreme legislative dictatorship,'" he answered, "It is a unilateral runaway by the majority."
When asked, "Please name the laws that the opposition party has shackled," Prime Minister Han cited the three energy laws (National Basic Power Grid Expansion Act, High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Special Act, and Offshore Wind Power Special Act), the 'Semiconductor Special Act' that exempts the semiconductor industry from the 52-hour workweek, and the 'Revision of the Espionage Act under the Criminal Act (Espionage Act)'.
He continued, "Most of it is about making the future of young people a little better, such as national security, economic development, and the social welfare of the people," and "If the political world does not take the lead in something, I can say with certainty that our country has no future."
He also repeatedly emphasized the legitimacy of exercising the right to request reconsideration (right to veto) such as the 'Grain Management Act' that requires mandatory purchase of excess production when rice prices plunge and the 'National Assembly Increase/Decrease Act' (partial revision of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. in the National Assembly) that expands the scope of accompanying orders.
Prime Minister Han said, "Reconsideration is a liberal democratic system designed to pursue the best wisdom and public interest through checks and balances," and "I think the number of reconsideration requests we have made so far is more than the number of reconsideration requests made by past governments combined, but going forward, we definitely need more legislation and cooperation in the National Assembly for the Constitution, laws, and the future."
Meanwhile, President Yoon, who appeared on that day, left the court before Prime Minister Han's appearance, and Attorney Yoon explained to the court, "I did not ask for your understanding because I thought it would be bad for the president and the prime minister to sit in the same courtroom and for the president to watch the prime minister testify, and it would also be bad for the country's status," and "I only consulted with my lawyer and left, so I ask for your understanding."
