A. The nature of the right to interview with another person by the defendant under detention or the suspect (=basic rights under the Constitution) and the provisions of Articles 89 and 213-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

B. Requirements and scope to restrict the right to meet under Paragraph A(a) above

(c) Whether Article 18(2) of the Criminal Administration Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to unconvicted prisoners, is in violation of the Constitution (negative)

A. One of the most fundamental freedom of human beings is that the defendant or suspect under detention is the subject of such fundamental rights, which is included in the right to pursue happiness as a human being guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution. Thus, the defendant or suspect under detention is also the subject of such fundamental rights, as well as the defendant or suspect under detention who is isolated from the outside of detention is able to maintain contact with the outside by communicating with other persons. In addition, Article 27(4) of the Constitution provides the principle of presumption of innocence provides that the defendant or suspect under detention has the above fundamental rights under the Constitution. Thus, the right to contact with other persons of the defendant or suspect under detention under Articles 89 and 213-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act is only the confirmation of such fundamental rights under the Constitution, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant or suspect's right to contact with other persons of the defendant or suspect under detention is created only under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Even if the right to interview with another person of the detained defendant or suspect is a fundamental right under the Constitution, if necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare, it may be restricted by law, in accordance with the provision of Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and specifically permitted meetings to prevent escape or destruction of evidence, or in the same case as when there is a considerable danger to harm the maintenance of order in the detention facility, the right to interview of the detained defendant or suspect may be restricted. However, even if such restriction is not necessary, it cannot be said that excessive restriction is unconstitutional as it infringes on the fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution.

C. Article 18(2) of the Criminal Administration Act provides that meetings, etc. of unconvicted prisoners shall be limited to cases where the above provision applies mutatis mutandis to unconvicted prisoners pursuant to Article 62 of the same Act, and where there are special circumstances to ensure that meetings are not actively permitted, meetings with those other than their relatives shall be permitted only in principle without allowing meetings with those of unconvicted prisoners and those other than their relatives. However, even if any Act seems to be in violation of the Constitution, it may be unconstitutional, under any other statutory interpretation method, if the meeting of unconvicted prisoners is deemed to be consistent with the Constitution according to other statutory interpretation method, the methods of interpretation corresponding to the Constitution should be selected. In light of the above, the exercise of the right of unconvicted prisoners as the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution should be guaranteed, and only exceptional restriction may be granted to the unconvicted prisoners, and if Article 18(2) of the Criminal Administration Act applies mutatis mutandis to the unconvicted prisoners, the concept of "necessary confinement facilities" should not be interpreted as unconstitutional, unless special circumstances exist to the extent that it does not interfere with the purpose of such interpretation.

(b)Article 89, Article 213-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 62 and Article 18 of the Criminal Administration Act. Article 10(b) of the Constitution. Article 37(2)(c) of the same Act, Articles 12 and 27(4) of the same Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Applicant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Red Correctional Institution;

All of the instant applications are dismissed.

The reasons for the application shall be considered.

Article 10 of the Constitution guaranteeing the dignity and value as human beings and the right to pursue happiness, Article 12 of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of physical freedom and behavior, and Article 27 (4) of the Constitution stipulating the principle of presumption of innocence is in violation of Article 18 (2) of the Criminal Administration Act, and Article 62 of the same Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to unconvicted prisoners' meetings other than their relatives, are unconstitutional (the applicant for the proposal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the entire application of Article 18 of the Criminal Administration Act, but only claims that Article 18 (2) of the same Act apply mutatis mutandis to the assertion that specific grounds for unconstitutionality are unconstitutional (Article 18 (2) of the same Act).

Therefore, it is one of the most fundamental freedom of human beings, which is comprised of human dignity, value, and the right to pursue happiness guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution. In addition, the defendant or suspect under detention is also the subject of such fundamental rights. Rather, the defendant or suspect under detention can maintain contact with the outside by meeting with other persons. In addition, Article 27(4) of the Constitution, which provides the principle of presumption of innocence, provides for the principle of presumption of innocence, provides that the right to interview with other persons of the defendant or suspect under detention is only to confirm the above fundamental rights under the Constitution, and does not create a right to interview with the defendant or suspect under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, even if the right to interview with another person of the accused or suspect under detention is a fundamental right under the Constitution, if necessary for national security, maintenance of order or public welfare, it may be restricted by law pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution. Specifically, the right to interview of the accused or suspect under detention may be restricted in cases where permission for meeting violates the purpose of detention, such as the prevention of escape or destruction of evidence, or where there is a considerable danger that such restriction may interfere with the maintenance of order in the detention facility (However, it cannot be said that excessive restriction is unconstitutional, even if such restriction does not require such restriction, even if it is necessary, to restrict the right to interview or restrict the necessary extent.)

Article 18(2) of the Criminal Administration Act provides that an interview with a person other than a relative of a convicted prisoner with respect to an unconvicted prisoner shall be limited to the case where a necessary work is available. Thus, even where the above provision applies mutatis mutandis to an unconvicted prisoner pursuant to Article 62 of the same Act, the concept of "necessary work" shall be limited and where there are special circumstances where an interview with a person other than a relative of the unconvicted prisoner is not actively permitted, if it is deemed that an interview with a person other than a relative of the unconvicted prisoner is permitted only in principle without allowing an interview with the unconvicted prisoner and a person other than his/her relative, and it is unconstitutional.

However, according to the one interpretation method, if it seems that the other interpretation method is in violation of the Constitution, it is possible to choose a method of interpretation consistent with the Constitution. As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the right of interview of unconvicted prisoners is guaranteed by the Constitution, as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the exercise of the right of interview of unconvicted prisoners shall be guaranteed in principle, and only exceptionally restricted, the concept of "necessary work" shall be broadly interpreted in a case where the provision of Article 18 (2) of the Criminal Administration Act applies mutatis mutandis to unconvicted prisoners, unless there are special circumstances that should not allow an interview, such as where the purpose of the interview is contrary to the purpose of detention or there are special risks that may undermine the maintenance of order in the confinement facility, it is possible to interpret it as "necessary work" in principle, and it is reasonable to choose such interpretation method as it does not arise.

Therefore, with respect to Article 18 (2) of the Criminal Administration Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to unconvicted prisoners under Article 62 of the same Act, the above provision shall not be deemed to violate Article 10, 12, or 27 (4) of the Constitution. Thus, the request for proposal by the applicant shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)