Whether the emergency detention case and the right to prepare a protocol of suspect by judicial police officer exists

It is reasonable to interpret that a judicial police officer who urgently detains a suspect as long as it is necessary to maintain and maintain the custody of the suspect pursuant to Article 8 of the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act, has the right to interrogation of the suspect, and the protocol of interrogation prepared in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Act in accordance with this right to interrogation constitutes a protocol of interrogation prepared in accordance with the laws and regulations of Article 343 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Articles 8, 56, and 343 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Kim Sung- Jae

The final appeal is dismissed.

In other words, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the evidence that the defendant's interrogation protocol of handling affairs against the defendant, but Article 12 of the Criminal Decree, which provides the interrogation protocol of judicial police officer's interrogation of the suspect, has been completely abolished. Therefore, the court below's judgment that accepted the interrogation protocol of the suspect in this case as evidence has no admissibility of evidence, and that the original judgment that accepted the interrogation protocol of the suspect in this case as evidence has no admissibility of evidence is unlawful.

Article 12 of the Decree on Korean Criminal Procedure was repealed by Act No. 176, Apr. 1, 4281, and Article 24 of the Decree on Korean Criminal Procedure. It is clear that the interrogation protocol for a suspect handling affairs was prepared by a judicial police officer on December 15, 200 after the abolition of the Decree. However, it is obvious that the judicial police officer who urgently arrests a suspect pursuant to Article 3 or 4 of the Decree on Korean Criminal Procedure, has the right to examine the suspect under Article 8 of the Decree, and if it is necessary to maintain the detention and to keep the investigation, it is unreasonable to interpret that the interrogation protocol prepared pursuant to Article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Act constitutes an interrogation protocol prepared pursuant to Article 343 of the same Act and subordinate statutes which are executed by the judicial police officer for the purpose of guaranteeing human rights of the criminal defendant, and that it would be unreasonable for the court below to hold that the interrogation protocol prepared pursuant to Article 17 of the same Act and subordinate statutes would be unreasonable if it is unreasonable to give the right to protect the suspect and its legitimate means of investigation.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)