Supreme Prosecutors' Office Distributes Manual to Counter 'Restrictions on Evidence Ability of Prosecutor-Written Evasion Statements'... "Actively Utilize Video Recordings and Investigator Testimonies"

Distributed to Local Prosecutors' Offices Ahead of Revised Criminal Procedure Act Enforcement

Seoul Seocho-dong Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Prosecutors' Office has created a manual to respond to the 'restriction on the evidentiary value of suspect interrogation records prepared by prosecutors,' which will take effect next year, and distributed it to local prosecutors' offices.

On the 30th, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office announced that, in anticipation of difficulties such as the inability to use prosecutor-prepared interrogation records as evidence in the same manner as before or prolonged trials due to the amended Criminal Procedure Act effective from the 1st of next month, it compiled a response manual based on internal reviews and suggestions from local prosecutors' offices and distributed it to frontline prosecutors' offices on the same day.

Article 312, Paragraph 1 of the current Criminal Procedure Act (Records by Prosecutors or Judicial Police Officers) states, "Records containing statements of a suspect who has become a defendant, prepared by a prosecutor in accordance with lawful procedures and methods, can be used as evidence only when it is acknowledged by the defendant's statements during the preparatory or trial sessions that the record accurately reflects the defendant's statements, and when it is proven that the statements recorded were made under particularly credible conditions."

Unlike interrogation records prepared by investigative agencies other than prosecutors, such as the police, which under Paragraph 3 of the same article are recognized as evidence only when the defendant or defense attorney acknowledges the content during preparatory or trial sessions, prosecutor-prepared interrogation records were previously recognized as evidence under certain conditions even if denied by parties in court.

However, the amended Article 312, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, revised last February and effective next month, stipulates that "suspect interrogation records prepared by prosecutors can be used as evidence only when the suspect, who has become the defendant, or the defense attorney acknowledges the content during preparatory or trial sessions," thereby removing the superior evidentiary value previously granted to prosecutor-prepared interrogation records.

Unlike before, if a suspect who confessed to the crime in front of a prosecutor during the investigation later recants the statement after the trial begins, the evidentiary value of the interrogation record will disappear.

On the same day, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office distributed three manuals to local prosecutors' offices summarizing investigative and trial response measures in the changed environment: ▲ Manual for Diversifying Prosecutor Investigation Methods According to the Amended Criminal Law (Criminal Division) ▲ Trial Response Manual Due to Restriction on Evidentiary Value of Prosecutor-Prepared Suspect Interrogation Records (Trial Litigation Division) ▲ Cases of Utilizing Video-Recorded Investigations in Investigation and Trial (Forensic Science Division).

Specifically, during the investigation stage, interrogation records should continue to be prepared and utilized appropriately considering the type of case and investigation purpose. In preparation for cases where the defendant denies the record's content in court, resulting in loss of evidentiary value, prosecutors are encouraged to ▲ actively conduct video-recorded investigations with functions to prevent statement recantation and ▲ utilize evidence preservation requests or witness examination requests to preserve and use key statements of accomplices before or after indictment and prior to one trial session.

During the trial stage, prosecutors should ▲ actively conduct investigator testimony (Article 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act), where the investigator or participant who heard the suspect's statement during the investigation is examined as a witness, ▲ use suspect interrogation records and video recordings for proving the "particularly credible conditions" required for investigator testimony and for impeachment against the defendant's denial in court, ▲ prove criminal charges through thorough defendant examination, and ▲ actively reflect the defendant's statement recantation and courtroom demeanor in sentencing recommendations.

Furthermore, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office announced plans to pursue amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act to allow video recordings generated during investigative processes to be used as independent evidence in court, even if the suspect denies the crime in court.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office stated, "We will continue multifaceted efforts to ensure that evidence necessary for proving crimes is secured and presented smoothly in court through cooperation with related agencies such as courts and police, so that there will be no disruption in the state's crime response even after the amended Criminal Procedure Act takes effect."

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