A. Whether the right to meet and communicate with a defense counsel is restricted (negative)

(b) A case where an interview with a suspect, etc. by a defense counsel is not permitted within a reasonable period from the date of application;

A. Since the right to interview and communicate by defense counsel as stipulated in Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act is an essential right for guaranteeing the human rights of the accused or the suspect under physical restraint and preparing for defense, the disposition taken by the investigative agency as well as the decision of the court shall not be restricted, unless there is a limitation by the law.

B. If an attorney-at-law who is or is to be appointed as a defense counsel of a suspect who is detained in a detention house and under investigation by a public prosecutor applied for an interview with the head of the detention house on July 31, 1989 to meet the suspect, but no interview is permitted even until August 9 of the same year, in light of the purport of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for quasi-appeal procedures under different special procedures from the administrative litigation procedure, in a case where he/she is dissatisfied with the disposition regarding detention, etc. of the investigative agency, it is reasonable to deem that the above interview with the suspect is not permitted for a considerable period from the date of

A. Article 12(4) of the Constitution, Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Chief Prosecutor of Seoul District Prosecutors' Office

Attorneys Gangnam- Line et al.

Seoul Criminal Court Order 89No. 10, August 10, 1989

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of re-appeal by the chief prosecutor of the Seoul District Prosecutor's Office are examined.

Article 12(4) of the Constitution provides that "any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to prompt assistance of counsel." Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the right to interview and communicate with a counsel or a person who intends to be a counsel in order to guarantee the right to receive assistance of counsel substantially, and the defendant or a suspect who is physically detained, shall have the right to interview and communicate with a counsel. Such right to interview and communicate with a counsel. Since the right to communicate is an essential right for guaranteeing the human rights of a defendant or a suspect under physical restraint or for preparing for defense, the disposition of the investigative agency as well as the decision of the court shall not be restricted unless there

The court below acknowledged the fact that the applicant was detained as the suspect in the case against the violation of the National Security Act and was appointed or to be appointed as the counsel by the prosecutor of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office on July 31, 1989, when the applicant applied for an interview to the head of the Seoul Detention Center on July 31, 1989, but the court below did not allow an interview until August 9, 198. In case where the applicant is dissatisfied with the disposition regarding the custody, etc. of the investigative agency, in light of the purpose of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is preparing a quasi-appeal procedure as a special procedure, it is reasonable to view that the interview with the above applicant is not allowed for a considerable period of time from the date of the application for interview is the same as the disposition of non-permission for interview. Accordingly, the court below accepted the quasi-appeal of this case by the applicant, etc., and decided to revoke the disposition of non-permission for interview with the applicant and the

In light of the purport of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the order of the court below cannot be deemed to have violated the Constitution, Acts, orders or rules that affected the judgment under Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)