피의자신문의 성질과 수인의무

Characterofinterrogationanddutyofsuspectto enduretheprocessofinterrogation

In 2003, some cases were reported to Attorney General of Korea in Supreme Prosecution Service, in which the suspect in detention rejected the request of the prosecutor to attend at his office. Previously, the Prosecution Service interpreted the request to attend for interrogation of the suspect to have the power to impose the duty on the suspect. But in the Academic circles, the majority viewed the request to have no power to impose the duty. Thus they explained the suspect may refuse to attend and during the interrogation leave the office anytime. The suspects who refused to attend rely on the view of the majority of the literature. The Prosecution Service insisted that the interrogation system of Korean Criminal Procedure give the prosecutor and the judicial police the authority to impose the duty to attend on the suspect, especially the duty to attend and to stay on the suspect in arrest or detention. The duty could be forced by arrest warrant or detention warrant. The provision of detention(§ 69, Korean Criminal Procedure) give the definition that it includes the power to take the suspect to a place and to detain in custody. The power to take to a place should be interpreted to include the power to take the suspect to the investigator’s office during the detention. In this Case of the suspect in detention, the Court approved the view of the Prosecution Service and concluded the judicial police officer who took the suspect to the office for interrogation to be lawful. Notwithstanding, the Court explained the character of the interrogation to be voluntary because the statement of the suspect should not be forced. But it could be said contradictory between the possibility of forcing the duty to attend and stay against the suspect’s will and the character of voluntainess. The compulsory nature could be said to be proper to this system.