{"id":2208994,"date":"2025-04-04T13:09:03","date_gmt":"2025-04-04T04:09:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/?p=2208994"},"modified":"2025-04-04T13:15:38","modified_gmt":"2025-04-04T04:15:38","slug":"full-text-south-koreas-top-court-upholds-yoon-suk-yeols-impeachment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/2025\/04\/full-text-south-koreas-top-court-upholds-yoon-suk-yeols-impeachment\/","title":{"rendered":"Full text: South Korea\u2019s top court upholds Yoon Suk-yeol\u2019s impeachment"},"content":{"rendered":"
South Korea\u2019s Constitutional Court <\/span>unanimously upheld<\/span><\/a> former President Yoon Suk-yeol\u2019s impeachment on Friday, formally removing him from office following months of political unrest sparked by his attempt to impose martial law against \u201canti-state forces\u201d on Dec. 3, 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n At 11:22 a.m. KST, Acting Constitutional Court Chief Justice Moon Hyungbae sealed Yoon\u2019s fate, making him the second South Korean president to be removed from office and the first to have been removed before his term was officially supposed to end.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Constitutional Court\u2019s eight justices unanimously agreed to remove Yoon from office, accepting all five grounds for impeachment put forward by the National Assembly and finding them legally and factually justified.<\/span><\/p>\n The court ruled that Yoon\u2019s <\/span>declaration of martial law<\/span><\/a>, which suspended political activities and authorized military intervention in politics and the press, violated constitutional principles. The decision described the former president\u2019s martial law declaration as a \u201cbetrayal of public trust\u201d that \u201cseverely endangered the stability of the democratic republic.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Since receiving the impeachment motion on Dec. 14, the Constitutional Court conducted two preliminary sessions and 11 hearings, questioning 16 witnesses. After the final hearing on Feb. 25, the justices deliberated nearly every day, marking the longest deliberation period for an impeachment case \u2014 111 days.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Korea Pro<\/span><\/i> provides both the English and Korean versions of the 22-minute verdict below to facilitate easier reader access and analysis of the Constitutional Court\u2019s legal reasoning for their unanimous decision.<\/span><\/p>\n The english version is an unofficial translation by Korea Pro of the Constitutional Court\u2019s pronouncement.\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n We will now begin the ruling on the <\/span>2024-Heon-Na-8<\/span><\/i> impeachment case against President Yoon Suk-yeol.<\/span><\/p>\n First, we will examine the requirements for legal admissibility.<\/span><\/p>\n Considering the purpose of impeachment trials, to protect the constitutional order from violations of the Constitution and laws by high-ranking public officials, even if the declaration of martial law in this case involves a high-level political decision, its conformity with the Constitution and the law can still be subject to judicial review.<\/span><\/p>\n The Constitution leaves the impeachment procedure of the National Assembly to legislation, and the National Assembly Act stipulates that an investigation by the Judiciary Committee is at the Assembly\u2019s discretion. Therefore, the absence of an investigation by the Judiciary Committee does not render the impeachment resolution unlawful.<\/span><\/p>\n The National Assembly Act stipulates that a motion that has been rejected may not be reintroduced during the same session. Although the first impeachment motion against the respondent failed to proceed to a vote during the 418th regular session, the impeachment motion in this case was introduced during the 419th extraordinary session. Therefore, it does not violate the principle of <\/span>ne bis in idem<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Meanwhile, Justice Cheong Hyungsik provided a supplementary opinion stating that legislation is needed to limit the number of times an impeachment motion may be introduced even across different sessions.<\/span><\/p>\n Even though the martial law in this case was lifted, the grounds for impeachment had already occurred due to the declaration itself. Therefore, the benefit of adjudication cannot be denied.<\/span><\/p>\n As long as the basic facts remain unchanged, withdrawing or changing the legal grounds cited (i.e., legal provisions applied) does not constitute a withdrawal or modification of the impeachment grounds. Accordingly, it is permissible even without a special procedure.<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent also argues that, had the insurrection-related accusations not been included among the grounds, the resolution would not have met the quorum. However, this is merely a hypothetical claim without any objective supporting evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n Since the resolution of the impeachment motion followed proper legal procedures, and there is sufficient prima facie evidence of the respondent\u2019s violations of the Constitution or the law, the impeachment power cannot be considered to have been abused.<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, the impeachment petition in this case is legally admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n Regarding the rules of evidence, Justices Lee Mison and Kim Hyungdu expressed the supplementary opinion that the hearsay rule under the Criminal Procedure Act can be applied with greater flexibility in impeachment proceedings. Conversely, Justices Kim Bok-hyeong and Cho Hanchang provided the supplementary opinion that stricter application of the hearsay rule should be required in future impeachment proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n Next, we will examine whether the respondent violated the Constitution or laws in the performance of official duties, and whether such violations are serious enough to warrant removal from office.<\/span><\/p>\n First, we will review each ground for impeachment individually.<\/span><\/p>\n According to the <\/span>Constitution<\/span><\/a> and the <\/span>Martial Law Act<\/span><\/a>, one of the substantive requirements for declaring emergency martial law is the <\/span>actual occurrence of a wartime, emergency, or equivalent national crisis situation<\/span><\/i>, such that the country is either in a state of hostilities or public order is so severely disrupted that the functions of administration and the judiciary are significantly hindered.<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent claims that such a grave crisis situation arose due to the opposition party\u2019s dominant majority in the National Assembly, its unusual push for impeachment, unilateral exercise of legislative power, and attempts to reduce the government budget \u2014 all of which, according to the respondent, constituted an abuse of power.<\/span><\/p>\n Following the respondent\u2019s inauguration and before the declaration of martial law in this case, the National Assembly had introduced a total of 22 impeachment motions against figures such as the Interior Minister, prosecutors, the Chairperson of the Korea Communications Commission and the Chair of the Board of Audit and Inspection. This raised concerns that the Assembly was using the impeachment system as a political tool against the administration, basing the motions solely on suspicions of legal violations without carefully considering their constitutional or legal grounds.<\/span><\/p>\n However, at the time of the martial law declaration in this case, only two impeachment proceedings were actually underway. Against one prosecutor and the Chairperson of the Korea Communications Commission.<\/span><\/p>\n The bills that the respondent claimed were unilaterally passed by the opposition party and were problematic had not yet taken effect, as the respondent had either requested reconsideration or withheld promulgation.<\/span><\/p>\n Regarding the 2025 budget bill, at the time of the martial law declaration, the government was still executing the 2024 budget. The proposed 2025 budget had not been voted on in a plenary session and had only been approved by the Budget and Accounts Committee of the National Assembly. Therefore, it could not have had any actual impact on the situation.<\/span><\/p>\n Thus, the exercise of powers such as impeachment motions, legislation and budget deliberations by the National Assembly cannot be seen as having created a grave crisis situation in reality at the time of the martial law declaration.<\/span><\/p>\n Even if the National Assembly\u2019s exercise of its powers were deemed unlawful or improper, such matters can be addressed through ordinary constitutional mechanisms such as impeachment review by the Constitutional Court or the president\u2019s request for reconsideration of legislation. They do not justify invoking emergency powers.<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent also argued that martial law was declared to address allegations of election fraud. However, the mere existence of suspicions does not constitute the actual occurrence of a grave crisis.<\/span><\/p>\n Additionally, the National Election Commission (NEC) announced that it had addressed most of the identified security vulnerabilities prior to the 22nd National Assembly election. It also implemented measures such as 24-hour surveillance camera footage of ballot storage locations and introduced a manual ballot verification system in the vote-counting process. These actions further undermine the credibility of the respondent\u2019s claim.<\/span><\/p>\n Ultimately, even considering all the circumstances cited by the respondent, there was no objectively justifiable crisis situation at the time of the declaration that could validate the respondent\u2019s judgment.<\/span><\/p>\n The Constitution and Martial Law Act require that martial law be declared based on a military necessity involving the use of armed forces or a need and purpose to maintain public safety and order.<\/span><\/p>\n However, the alleged paralysis of governance due to the National Assembly\u2019s exercise of authority and suspicions of election fraud are matters that must be resolved through political, institutional, or judicial means, not by mobilizing the military.<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent claimed that the martial law in this case was intended as a \u201cwarning\u201d or an \u201cappeal\u201d to inform the public of the opposition party\u2019s abuse of power and the national crisis. However, this is not a valid state of purpose under the Martial Law Act.<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, the respondent went beyond merely declaring martial law and took actions that interfered with the National Assembly\u2019s exercise of its powers through the mobilization of military and police forces. Such actions violated the Constitution and laws, and therefore, the respondent\u2019s claim of a \u201cwarning\u201d or \u201cappeal\u201d type of martial law cannot be accepted.<\/span><\/p>\n Accordingly, the declaration of martial law in this case violated the substantive requirements for declaring an emergency martial law.<\/span><\/p>\n Next, we examine whether the declaration of martial law met the procedural requirements.<\/span><\/p>\n The declaration of martial law and the appointment of a martial law commander must undergo deliberation by the State Council.<\/span><\/p>\n It is acknowledged that, just prior to the declaration, the respondent briefly explained the purpose of martial law to the prime minister and nine Cabinet members.<\/span><\/p>\n However, the respondent did not provide details about the martial law commander or other specific contents of the declaration, nor did the members have an opportunity to express their opinions. Considering these facts, it is difficult to conclude that a proper deliberation took place.<\/span><\/p>\n Additionally, the respondent declared martial law even though the prime minister and relevant Cabinet members did not countersign the emergency martial law proclamation. The respondent also failed to publicly announce the time of enforcement, the areas affected and the identity of the martial law commander and did not notify the National Assembly without delay.<\/span><\/p>\n Thus, the respondent violated the procedural requirements for declaring emergency martial law as prescribed by the Constitution and the Martial Law Act.<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent instructed the defense minister to deploy the military to the National Assembly.<\/span><\/p>\n Following this order, soldiers entered the National Assembly premises using helicopters and other means, and some even broke windows to enter the main building.<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent gave orders to the Army Special Warfare Command and others, stating, \u201cAs the quorum for a vote has yet to be made, break down the doors and drag out the people inside.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent also contacted the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency six times directly by phone and, through the martial law commander, conveyed the contents of the martial law decree. In response, the police completely blocked access to the National Assembly.<\/span><\/p>\n As a result, some members of the National Assembly who were attempting to gather had to climb over walls to enter, while others were unable to enter at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Meanwhile, the defense minister instructed the commander of the Defense Counterintelligence Command to identify the locations of 14 individuals, including the National Assembly Speaker and leaders of various political parties, for the purpose of potential arrests if necessary. The respondent also called the first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) and instructed him to assist the Defense Counterintelligence Command. Following this, the Counterintelligence Commander requested the first deputy director of the NIS to locate the individuals in question.<\/span><\/p>\n Through such actions, the respondent ordered the deployment of military and police personnel to restrict access to the National Assembly by its members and instructed the forcible removal of lawmakers, thereby obstructing the National Assembly\u2019s exercise of its constitutional powers. This violated the constitutional provision that grants the National Assembly the authority to demand the lifting of martial law, and infringed upon lawmakers\u2019 rights to deliberate and vote, as well as their immunity from arrest.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, by involving himself in attempts to track the whereabouts of party leaders and others, the respondent infringed upon the freedom of political party activities.<\/span><\/p>\n By deploying armed forces for political purposes to obstruct the exercise of the National Assembly\u2019s powers, the respondent caused the military \u2014 whose mission is to serve the nation by ensuring national security and defending the homeland \u2014 to stand in opposition to ordinary citizens.<\/span><\/p>\n Accordingly, the respondent violated the principle of political neutrality within the ROK Armed Forces and breached his constitutional duty to command the military in accordance with the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n Through the decree issued in this case, the respondent prohibited the activities of the National Assembly, local councils and political parties. In doing so, the respondent violated constitutional provisions that grant the National Assembly the right to request the lifting of martial law, as well as provisions that establish the party system, and infringed upon the principles of representative democracy and the separation of powers.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, by violating constitutional and statutory provisions under the Constitution and the Martial Law Act that stipulate the requirements for restricting fundamental rights under emergency martial law, and by violating the principle of warrant-based due process, the respondent infringed upon the people\u2019s political rights, the right to collective action and the freedom to choose one\u2019s occupation.<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent instructed the defense minister to deploy military personnel to inspect the NEC\u2019s computer systems. In response, military forces were sent to the commission\u2019s headquarters, where they restricted access, confiscated the mobile phones of on-duty staff and recorded the computer systems.<\/span><\/p>\n This constituted a search and seizure of the NEC without a warrant, thereby violating the constitutional principle of warrant-based due process, and infringed upon the independence of the NEC.<\/span><\/p>\n As previously mentioned, the respondent was involved in attempts to determine individuals\u2019 locations for the purpose of possible arrest. Among the targets were a recently retired Chief Justice and former Supreme Court Justices.<\/span><\/p>\n Such actions place pressure on sitting judges by implying that they too could be subject to arrest by the executive branch at any time. This constitutes an infringement on the independence of the judiciary.<\/span><\/p>\n Let us now consider whether the respondent\u2019s violations of law, as examined thus far, are grave enough to justify removal from office.<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent declared martial law in an attempt to overcome a confrontational situation with the National Assembly, and then deployed military and police forces to obstruct the exercise of constitutional powers by the National Assembly. In doing so, he denied the principles of popular sovereignty and democracy, disregarded the constitutional system of governance by ordering the military to conduct raids on the NEC, and severely infringed upon the fundamental rights of the people through the issuance of the Martial Law Decree.<\/span><\/p>\n These actions violate the fundamental principles of the rule of law and democratic governance, thereby damaging the constitutional order and severely endangering the stability of the democratic republic.<\/span><\/p>\n While it is true that the National Assembly was able to promptly pass a resolution to lift martial law, this was only possible due to public resistance and the passive execution of duties by the military and police. This fact does not mitigate the seriousness of the respondent\u2019s legal violations.<\/span><\/p>\n Presidential authority is derived solely from the Constitution. The respondent exercised the national emergency powers \u2014 powers that require the utmost prudence beyond constitutional limits \u2014 thereby undermining public trust in the president\u2019s exercise of authority.<\/span><\/p>\n Since the respondent\u2019s inauguration, multiple impeachment motions led by the opposition party resulted in the suspension of duties of various high-ranking public officials during their constitutional adjudication proceedings. Regarding the 2025 national budget, for the first time in constitutional history, the National Assembly\u2019s Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, led solely by the opposition, passed only budget cuts without any increases.<\/span><\/p>\n Major policies set forth by the respondent could not be implemented due to the opposition party\u2019s resistance, and the opposition unilaterally passed laws opposed by the government, prompting repeated exercises of the president\u2019s veto power and repeated legislative re-approvals by the National Assembly.<\/span><\/p>\n Amid these events, the respondent likely felt a heavy sense of responsibility, perceiving the nation\u2019s governance to be paralyzed and national interest severely harmed by the opposition\u2019s unilateral actions.<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent\u2019s assessment that the National Assembly\u2019s exercise of power constituted an abuse or a cause of national paralysis should be worthy of political respect. However, the conflict between the respondent and the National Assembly cannot be attributed to one side alone. It is a political issue that must be resolved through democratic principles. Political opinions or public decisions on such matters must be expressed and made within the scope compatible with constitutionally guaranteed democracy.<\/span><\/p>\n The National Assembly should have respected minority opinions and sought to reach conclusions through dialogue and compromise with the government based on tolerance and restraint.<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, the respondent should have respected the National Assembly, which represents the people, as a partner in cooperative governance.<\/span><\/p>\n Nevertheless, the respondent treated the National Assembly as an entity to be excluded, which undermines the premise of democratic politics and cannot be reconciled with democratic values.<\/span><\/p>\n Even if the respondent regarded the National Assembly\u2019s exercise of power as majoritarian tyranny, he should have worked within the constitutional framework to realize checks and balances through constitutionally prescribed remedies.<\/span><\/p>\n Approximately two years after taking office, the respondent had an opportunity to persuade the public to support his leadership during the parliamentary elections. Even if the results did not align with the respondent\u2019s intentions, he should not have attempted to disregard the will of the people who supported the opposition.<\/span><\/p>\n Despite this, the respondent violated the Constitution and the law by declaring martial law, reviving a dark history of national emergency power abuse, shocking the nation and causing turmoil across all sectors \u2014 social, economic, political and diplomatic.<\/span><\/p>\n As the president for all the people, the respondent failed in his duty to rise above the interests of his own supporters and to unify the broader community.<\/span><\/p>\n By mobilizing military and police forces to undermine the powers of constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly and to infringe upon the basic rights of the people, the respondent abandoned his duty to uphold the Constitution and gravely betrayed the trust of the sovereign people of the Republic of Korea.<\/span><\/p>\n As a result, the respondent\u2019s unconstitutional and unlawful acts amount to a serious violation of law that cannot be tolerated from the perspective of constitutional protection, as they represent a betrayal of public trust.<\/span><\/p>\n Given the grave and far-reaching negative impact of the respondent\u2019s legal violations on the constitutional order, the benefit of protecting the Constitution through the respondent\u2019s removal clearly outweighs the national costs incurred by the removal of a sitting president.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Accordingly, we pronounce the following ruling with the unanimous agreement of all justices.<\/b><\/p>\n Since this is a constitutional impeachment case, we will now record the time of the ruling. The current time is 11:22 A.M.<\/b><\/p>\n Order: The respondent, President Yoon Suk-yeol, is removed from office.<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n This concludes the ruling.<\/span><\/p>\n \uc9c0\uae08\ubd80\ud130 2024\ud5cc\ub0988 \ub300\ud1b5\ub839 \uc724\uc11d\uc5f4 \ud0c4\ud575\uc0ac\uac74\uc5d0 \ub300\ud55c \uc120\uace0\ub97c \uc2dc\uc791\ud558\uaca0\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \uba3c\uc800, \uc801\ubc95\uc694\uac74\uc5d0 \uad00\ud558\uc5ec \uc0b4\ud3b4\ubcf4\uaca0\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \uace0\uc704\uacf5\uc9c1\uc790\uc758 \ud5cc\ubc95 \ubc0f \ubc95\ub960 \uc704\ubc18\uc73c\ub85c\ubd80\ud130 \ud5cc\ubc95\uc9c8\uc11c\ub97c \uc218\ud638\ud558\uace0\uc790 \ud558\ub294 \ud0c4\ud575\uc2ec\ud310\uc758 \ucde8\uc9c0 \ub4f1\uc744 \uace0\ub824\ud558\uba74, \uc774 \uc0ac\uac74 \uacc4\uc5c4 \uc120\ud3ec\uac00 \uace0\ub3c4\uc758 \uc815\uce58\uc801 \uacb0\ub2e8\uc744 \uc694\ud558\ub294 \ud589\uc704\ub77c \ud558\ub354\ub77c\ub3c4 \uadf8 \ud5cc\ubc95 \ubc0f \ubc95\ub960 \uc704\ubc18 \uc5ec\ubd80\ub97c \uc2ec\uc0ac\ud560 \uc218 \uc788\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \ud5cc\ubc95\uc740 \uad6d\ud68c\uc758 \uc18c\ucd94 \uc808\ucc28\ub97c \uc785\ubc95\uc5d0 \ub9e1\uae30\uace0 \uc788\uace0, \uad6d\ud68c\ubc95\uc740 \ubc95\uc0ac\uc704 \uc870\uc0ac \uc5ec\ubd80\ub97c \uad6d\ud68c\uc758 \uc7ac\ub7c9\uc73c\ub85c \uaddc\uc815\ud558\uace0 \uc788\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4. \ub530\ub77c\uc11c \ubc95\uc0ac\uc704\uc758 \uc870\uc0ac\uac00 \uc5c6\uc5c8\ub2e4\uace0 \ud558\uc5ec \ud0c4\ud575\uc18c\ucd94 \uc758\uacb0\uc774 \ubd80\uc801\ubc95\ud558\ub2e4\uace0 \ubcfc \uc218 \uc5c6\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \uad6d\ud68c\ubc95\uc740 \ubd80\uacb0\ub41c \uc548\uac74\uc744 \uac19\uc740 \ud68c\uae30 \uc911\uc5d0 \ub2e4\uc2dc \ubc1c\uc758\ud560 \uc218 \uc5c6\ub3c4\ub85d \uaddc\uc815\ud558\uace0 \uc788\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4. \ud53c\uccad\uad6c\uc778\uc5d0 \ub300\ud55c 1\ucc28 \ud0c4\ud575\uc18c\ucd94\uc548\uc774 \uc81c418\ud68c \uc815\uae30\ud68c \ud68c\uae30\uc5d0 \ud22c\ud45c \ubd88\uc131\ub9bd\ub418\uc5c8\uc9c0\ub9cc, \uc774 \uc0ac\uac74 \ud0c4\ud575\uc18c\ucd94\uc548\uc740 \uc81c419\ud68c \uc784\uc2dc\ud68c \ud68c\uae30 \uc911\uc5d0 \ubc1c\uc758\ub418\uc5c8\uc73c\ubbc0\ub85c, \uc77c\uc0ac\ubd80\uc7ac\uc758 \uc6d0\uce59\uc5d0 \uc704\ubc18\ub418\uc9c0 \uc54a\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \ud55c\ud3b8 \uc774\uc5d0 \ub300\ud574\uc11c\ub294 \ub2e4\ub978 \ud68c\uae30\uc5d0\ub3c4 \ud0c4\ud575\uc18c\ucd94\uc548\uc758 \ubc1c\uc758 \ud69f\uc218\ub97c \uc81c\ud55c\ud558\ub294 \uc785\ubc95\uc774 \ud544\uc694\ud558\ub2e4\ub294 \uc7ac\ud310\uad00 \uc815\ud615\uc2dd\uc758 \ubcf4\ucda9\uc758\uacac\uc774 \uc788\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \uc774 \uc0ac\uac74 \uacc4\uc5c4\uc774 \ud574\uc81c\ub418\uc5c8\ub2e4\uace0 \ud558\ub354\ub77c\ub3c4 \uc774 \uc0ac\uac74 \uacc4\uc5c4\uc73c\ub85c \uc778\ud558\uc5ec \uc774 \uc0ac\uac74 \ud0c4\ud575 \uc0ac\uc720\ub294 \uc774\ubbf8 \ubc1c\uc0dd\ud558\uc600\uc73c\ubbc0\ub85c \uc2ec\ud310\uc758 \uc774\uc775\uc774 \ubd80\uc815\ub41c\ub2e4\uace0 \ubcfc \uc218 \uc5c6\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \uae30\ubcf8\uc801 \uc0ac\uc2e4\uad00\uacc4\ub294 \ub3d9\uc77c\ud558\uac8c \uc720\uc9c0\ud558\uba74\uc11c \uc801\uc6a9\ubc95\uc870\ubb38\uc744 \ucca0\ud68c\u2024\ubcc0\uacbd\ud558\ub294 \uac83\uc740 \uc18c\ucd94\uc0ac\uc720\uc758 \ucca0\ud68c\u2024\ubcc0\uacbd\uc5d0 \ud574\ub2f9\ud558\uc9c0 \uc54a\uc73c\ubbc0\ub85c, \ud2b9\ubcc4\ud55c \uc808\ucc28\ub97c \uac70\uce58\uc9c0 \uc54a\ub354\ub77c\ub3c4 \ud5c8\uc6a9\ub429\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \ud53c\uccad\uad6c\uc778\uc740 \uc18c\ucd94\uc0ac\uc720\uc5d0 \ub0b4\ub780\uc8c4 \uad00\ub828 \ubd80\ubd84\uc774 \uc5c6\uc5c8\ub2e4\uba74 \uc758\uacb0\uc815\uc871\uc218\ub97c \ucda9\uc871\ud558\uc9c0 \ubabb\ud558\uc600\uc744 \uac83\uc774\ub77c\uace0\ub3c4 \uc8fc\uc7a5\ud558\uc9c0\ub9cc, \uc774\ub294 \uac00\uc815\uc801 \uc8fc\uc7a5\uc5d0 \ubd88\uacfc\ud558\uba70 \uac1d\uad00\uc801\uc73c\ub85c \ub4b7\ubc1b\uce68\ud560 \uadfc\uac70\ub3c4 \uc5c6\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \uc774 \uc0ac\uac74 \ud0c4\ud575\uc18c\ucd94\uc548\uc758 \uc758\uacb0 \uacfc\uc815\uc774 \uc801\ubc95\ud558\uace0, \ud53c\uc18c\ucd94\uc790\uc758 \ud5cc\ubc95 \ub610\ub294 \ubc95\ub960 \uc704\ubc18\uc774 \uc77c\uc815 \uc218\uc900 \uc774\uc0c1 \uc18c\uba85\ub418\uc5c8\uc73c\ubbc0\ub85c, \ud0c4\ud575\uc18c\ucd94\uad8c\uc774 \ub0a8\uc6a9\ub418\uc5c8\ub2e4\uace0 \ubcfc \uc218 \uc5c6\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \uadf8\ub807\ub2e4\uba74 \uc774 \uc0ac\uac74 \ud0c4\ud575\uc2ec\ud310\uccad\uad6c\ub294 \uc801\ubc95\ud569\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \ud55c\ud3b8 \uc99d\uac70\ubc95\uce59\uacfc \uad00\ub828\ud558\uc5ec, \ud0c4\ud575\uc2ec\ud310\uc808\ucc28\uc5d0\uc11c \ud615\uc0ac\uc18c\uc1a1\ubc95\uc0c1 \uc804\ubb38\ubc95\uce59\uc744 \uc644\ud654\ud558\uc5ec \uc801\uc6a9\ud560 \uc218 \uc788\ub2e4\ub294 \uc7ac\ud310\uad00 \uc774\ubbf8\uc120, \uae40\ud615\ub450\uc758 \ubcf4\ucda9\uc758\uacac\uacfc,<\/span><\/p>\n \ud0c4\ud575\uc2ec\ud310\uc808\ucc28\uc5d0\uc11c \uc55e\uc73c\ub85c\ub294 \uc804\ubb38\ubc95\uce59\uc744 \ubcf4\ub2e4 \uc5c4\uaca9\ud558\uac8c \uc801\uc6a9\ud560 \ud544\uc694\uac00 \uc788\ub2e4\ub294 \uc7ac\ud310\uad00 \uae40\ubcf5\ud615, \uc870\ud55c\ucc3d\uc758 \ubcf4\ucda9\uc758\uacac\uc774 \uc788\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \ub2e4\uc74c\uc73c\ub85c \ud53c\uccad\uad6c\uc778\uc774 \uc9c1\ubb34\uc9d1\ud589\uc5d0 \uc788\uc5b4 \ud5cc\ubc95\uc774\ub098 \ubc95\ub960\uc744 \uc704\ubc18\ud558\uc600\ub294\uc9c0, \ud53c\uccad\uad6c\uc778\uc758 \ubc95\uc704\ubc18 \ud589\uc704\uac00 \ud53c\uccad\uad6c\uc778\uc744 \ud30c\uba74\ud560 \ub9cc\ud07c \uc911\ub300\ud55c \uac83\uc778\uc9c0\uc5d0 \uad00\ud558\uc5ec \uc0b4\ud3b4\ubcf4\uaca0\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \uc6b0\uc120 \uc18c\ucd94\uc0ac\uc720\ubcc4\ub85c \uc0b4\ud3b4\ubcf4\uaca0\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \ud5cc\ubc95 \ubc0f \uacc4\uc5c4\ubc95\uc5d0 \ub530\ub974\uba74, \ube44\uc0c1\uacc4\uc5c4 \uc120\ud3ec\uc758 \uc2e4\uccb4\uc801 \uc694\uac74 \uc911 \ud558\ub098\ub294 \u2018\uc804\uc2dc\u2024\uc0ac\ubcc0 \ub610\ub294 \uc774\uc5d0 \uc900\ud558\ub294 \uad6d\uac00\ube44\uc0c1\uc0ac\ud0dc\ub85c \uc801\uacfc \uad50\uc804 \uc0c1\ud0dc\uc5d0 \uc788\uac70\ub098 \uc0ac\ud68c\uc9c8\uc11c\uac00 \uadf9\ub3c4\ub85c \uad50\ub780\ub418\uc5b4 \ud589\uc815 \ubc0f \uc0ac\ubc95 \uae30\ub2a5\uc758 \uc218\ud589\uc774 \ud604\uc800\ud788 \uace4\ub780\ud55c \uc0c1\ud669\uc774 \ud604\uc2e4\uc801\uc73c\ub85c \ubc1c\uc0dd\ud558\uc5ec\uc57c \ud55c\ub2e4\u2019\ub294 \uac83\uc785\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nEnglish version:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nKorean version:<\/h4>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n