All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Order 2015Mo2357 Dated March 17, 2020 【Re-appeal of Decision of Acceptance of Quasi-Appeal】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] When a prosecutor interrogates a suspect in an interrogation room, whether protective equipment should be used on an exceptional basis only in cases where the risks described in each subparagraph of Article 97(1) of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act, for example, where a prisoner is highly likely to abscond, commit suicide, injure himself/herself or injure other persons, are clearly and concretely manifested (affirmative) When a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer interrogates a confined suspect in an interrogation room, whether the prosecutor is obliged to request a correctional officer to remove protective equipment unless special circumstances exist, and whether the correctional officer ought to abide by the request (affirmative) [2] When a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer interrogates an incarcerated suspect, whether his/her refusal of a request of a suspect or a defense counsel to remove protective equipment constitutes a “disposition concerning confinement” prescribed in Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act (affirmative) [3] Meaning of “good cause” prescribed in Article 243-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Whether a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer who forced a defense counsel to withdraw from an interrogation room on the sole ground that the said defense counsel raised an objection to unfair interrogation techniques employed during a suspect interrogation is deemed to have placed a restriction on the defense counsel’s right to participate in a suspect interrogation without reasonable grounds (affirmative), and whether to allow such a practice (negative) |
|
