Constitutional Court Dismisses Constitutional Complaint on Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act Regarding Evidence Validity of Prosecutor's Evasion Statement

Former Supreme Court Senior Research Judge Yoo Hae-yong Acquitted... 'Premise of Trial' Disappears

Constitutional Court Grand Bench.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A constitutional complaint regarding Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which concerns the evidentiary power of suspect interrogation records prepared by prosecutors, has been dismissed.

The petitioner, who filed the constitutional complaint against the provision during a criminal trial, had already been acquitted by the Supreme Court, making it impossible for the Constitutional Court's decision on the constitutionality to affect the trial outcome. Therefore, the complaint was deemed inadmissible. This means the requirement of "prematurity of the trial," one of the admissibility conditions for constitutional review requests, was not met.

On the 23rd, the Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the constitutional complaint filed by former Supreme Court Senior Judicial Researcher Yoo Hae-yong, who was indicted on charges including abuse of authority related to the "judicial scandal" case. Yoo claimed that Article 312, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the evidentiary power of suspect interrogation records prepared by prosecutors, and Article 200 of the same Act regarding the prosecutor's or judicial police officer's summons of suspects, violated the principles of due process and presumption of innocence, and infringed on the defendant's right to remain silent and right to a fair trial.

The Constitutional Court stated, "This constitutional complaint is inadmissible, and thus, by unanimous opinion of the participating justices, it is dismissed."

Article 312, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Act, which Yoo challenged, recognizes the evidentiary power of suspect interrogation records prepared by prosecutors under more relaxed conditions compared to those prepared by other investigative agencies such as judicial police officers. The law was amended last year, and starting next year, suspect interrogation records prepared by prosecutors will only have evidentiary power in court if the defendant or defense counsel acknowledges their content. Paragraph 2 of the same article, which allowed the interrogation record to be used as evidence if the defendant denied the authenticity of the prosecutor-prepared record but it was proven that the statement was made under particularly credible circumstances, has since been deleted.

Article 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act states, "A prosecutor or judicial police officer may summon a suspect to appear and hear their statement when necessary for investigation."

Yoo filed a request for a constitutional review of these provisions during his first trial, but after it was dismissed, he filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court in June 2019.

Yoo argued that Article 200 does not specifically limit the number, time, or method of summons by prosecutors, which effectively allows prosecutors to publicly summon suspects repeatedly and interrogate them for extended periods, resulting in coercion of confessions.

He also pointed out that paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 312 unreasonably relax the conditions for recognizing the evidentiary power of prosecutor-prepared interrogation records compared to those prepared by the police, violating the presumption of innocence and infringing on the right to a fair trial.

However, the Constitutional Court did not proceed to substantive review (to determine whether the provisions violate fundamental rights and are unconstitutional) and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the admissibility requirements were not met.

According to Article 68, paragraph 2 of the Constitutional Court Act, constitutional complaints (so-called constitutional complaints against laws) differ from constitutional complaints under paragraph 1 in that their essence is constitutional review of laws, and thus must meet the prematurity requirement (the Constitutional Court's decision must potentially affect the outcome of ongoing court proceedings). Since the acquittal was already finalized, this requirement was not met.

The Constitutional Court explained the reason for dismissal: "In this case, the petitioner was acquitted, and both the prosecutor's appeal and final appeal were dismissed, confirming the acquittal. Therefore, a declaration of unconstitutionality regarding the summons provision and the interrogation record provision will not affect the conclusion or order of the trial in this case. Accordingly, this constitutional complaint lacks prematurity and is inadmissible."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.