[1] Whether a voluntary criminal suspect and a person under investigation are admitted to have the right to interview and communicate with counsel (affirmative)

[2] Whether the counsel's right to interview and communicate is restricted

[1] In order to substantially guarantee the right to counsel's assistance, the recognition of the right to interview and communicate with the counsel is a natural premise. Thus, the right to interview and communicate with the suspect who is committed to the investigation agency in the form of voluntary behavior is naturally recognized. The same applies to the person under internal investigation conducted in the form of voluntary behavior.

[2] Since the right to interview and communication is an essential right to guarantee the human rights of the defendant, the suspect or the person under investigation or the person under investigation and prepare for defense, the right to interview and communication shall not be restricted not only by the disposition of the investigative agency but also by the court

[1] Articles 30(1) and 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 10 and 12(1) and (4) of the Constitution / [2] Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Order 89Mo37 dated Feb. 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1009) Supreme Court Order 91Mo24 dated Mar. 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1324)

The Chief of Dongdae

Seoul District Court Order 96No2 dated March 11, 1996

The reappeal is dismissed.

The ground of reappeal No. 1 is examined.

In light of the records, the court below's action that recognized that the attorney appointed by the wife of the person under internal investigation rejected the request for interview with the person under internal investigation by the judicial police officer is just and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

The second ground for reappeal is examined.

Article 10 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness." The latter part of Article 12 (1) of the same Act provides that "no person shall be arrested, detained, seized, searched, or examined unless otherwise provided by Acts and subordinate statutes, and punished, protected, or forced labor without following lawful procedures shall not be taken." Article 10 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to immediately receive assistance of counsel." Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the defendant or suspect shall have the right to receive assistance of counsel by providing that he/she may appoint a counsel, so that the right to receive assistance of counsel may be a premise for the recognition of the right to meet and communicate with a defense counsel, and therefore, the right to meet and communicate with a suspect committed in the form of voluntary conduct shall be acknowledged, and the right to meet and communicate with a defense counsel or a person who intends to be a defense counsel shall be interpreted differently from the above provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)