Judicial Policy Research Institute Joint Academic Conference "Detention Period Restrictions Should Be Eased"

On the 21st, attendees are conducting the first session on the topic of research on court detention periods at the Judicial Policy Research Institute and Korean Bar Association's academic conference on "Improvement Measures for the Detention System," held in the Cheongsim Hall on the first floor of the Seoul Court Complex in Seocho-dong, Seoul. [Image source=Yonhap News]

The Korea Institute of Judicial Policy (Director Park Hyung-nam) held a joint academic conference on the theme of 'Improvement Measures for the Detention System,' discussing ways to improve the court detention period and the possibility of introducing a conditional detention system.

On the 21st, the Korea Institute of Judicial Policy announced on the 25th that it held a joint academic conference on the theme of 'Improvement Measures for the Detention System' with the Korean Bar Association and the Korean Criminal Law Association at the main auditorium on the first floor of the Seoul Court Complex in Seocho-gu, Seoul.

The joint academic conference, held from 2:00 PM to 5:30 PM on the 21st, was divided into two sessions: a study on the court detention period (Session 1) and issues regarding the conditional release system (Session 2), each proceeding with presentations and discussions. The overall moderator was Kwon Hyung-kwan, Public Relations Research Fellow at the Korea Institute of Judicial Policy.

The first session, moderated by Professor Noh Soo-hwan of Sungkyunkwan University School of Law, featured Senior Research Fellow Kim Yoon-sun (Presiding Judge) of the Korea Institute of Judicial Policy as the presenter on the topic 'A Study on the Court Detention Period.'

Senior Research Fellow Kim stated, "Recently, due to changes in the criminal trial environment such as oral hearings, strengthening of trial-centered procedures, and an increase in complex and difficult cases, the duration of criminal trials tends to be prolonged," adding, "It is difficult to find foreign legislative examples that uniformly limit detention periods by trial level as in Korea."

He pointed out, "In cases involving multiple victims or where the complexity and sophistication of the crime make prolonged hearings inevitable, or where the defendant faces serious criminal charges and there are ongoing reasons for detention such as risk of evidence tampering or flight, uniform detention period limits force the release of defendants on bail during the trial."

He also warned, "If trials proceed hastily to complete hearings within limited detention periods, there is a risk that defendants may not fully exercise their right to defense," and argued, "Legislative relaxation of detention period limits is necessary, and in exceptional cases, it is appropriate to extend the maximum detention period up to one year for both first instance and appellate trials."

Senior Research Fellow Kim cited exceptional reasons for extending detention periods, including ▲when the defendant commits a crime punishable by imprisonment or confinement exceeding 10 years ▲when the defendant poses a risk of recidivism ▲when there is concern for harm to victims or key witnesses ▲when additional hearings are needed due to investigation of major evidence, defendant's unjustified absence, or consolidation of related cases at the defendant's request ▲and when the defendant is re-detained for violating bail conditions.

He then proposed two amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act to introduce an exceptional extension system for detention periods.

The first proposal allows a detention period of 6 months, with the first trial extendable twice every 3 months up to a maximum of 1 year, the appellate trial extendable four times every 3 months also up to 1 year, and the supreme court trial maintaining the current maximum detention period of 8 months.

The second proposal sets a detention period of 2 months, with the first trial extendable five times every 2 months up to 1 year, the appellate trial extendable six times every 2 months also up to 1 year, and the supreme court trial maintaining the current maximum detention period of 8 months.

Finally, Senior Research Fellow Kim emphasized that to prevent prolonged pretrial detention due to extended detention periods, ▲a conditional release system should be introduced at the stage of issuing detention warrants ▲the current diverse release review systems should be unified to facilitate easier release review requests ▲and efficient hearing methods for criminal trials should be devised.

Following the presentations, the discussion panel included Professor Park Yong-chul of Sogang University, Presiding Judge Kwak Kyung-pyung of Incheon District Court, and Attorney Lee Yong-jae of Sangeon Law Office.

During the discussion, Professor Park expressed strong agreement with the need to relax detention period limits but raised concerns that the first and third exceptional extension reasons proposed by the presenter are not significantly different from the original reasons for detention, suggesting that detention extensions might be effectively predetermined.

Presiding Judge Kwak stated, "Considering the reality of criminal trials, extending the maximum detention period to one year is desirable, but among the exceptional extension reasons proposed, only the fourth reason should be accepted, and it should be defined more concisely."

Attorney Lee also agreed on the necessity of extending detention periods but suggested reconsidering the first exceptional extension reason proposed. He added, "Among the amendments, I find the first amendment with a 6-month detention period and renewal every 3 months reasonable, but it is preferable to set the maximum detention period for the supreme court trial at 6 months instead of the current 8 months."

In the second session, Professor Kim Jeong-hwan of Yonsei University presented on the conditional release system.

He argued, "While maintaining the principle of non-detention during investigation, to prevent the risk of recidivism and harm to victims, it is necessary to introduce a conditional release (conditional detention) decision system as a third alternative to the binary decision of 'detention warrant issuance' or 'dismissal' on the prosecutor's detention warrant request."

Professor Kim emphasized, "The conditional release system at the detention warrant request stage aligns with the presumption of innocence and the principle of non-detention during investigation, and can complement the low effectiveness of release systems after detention, making its introduction appropriate."

He explained, "Specifically, it is appropriate to issue a detention warrant but decide on conditional release with conditions varying according to the reasons for detention. However, to operate the conditional release system properly, ▲the abstract and general detention reasons must be objectified and clarified, and ▲an appeal (warrant appeal) as a general method of challenging all court decisions on detention warrant requests, including conditional release decisions, must be allowed."

He noted that if only appeals against conditional release decisions are allowed, judges might hesitate to grant conditional release decisions in practice.

The subsequent discussion included Judge Kim Yoo-jung of Seoul Central District Court, Prosecutor Han Dae-woong of the Criminal Policy Office at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, and Public Defender Kim Do-yoon of Incheon District Court.

Judge Kim agreed on the need to introduce the conditional release system but emphasized the need to specify and diversify release conditions and to codify them. He also suggested that appeals should be allowed only for conditional release decisions, not for detention warrant issuance or dismissal decisions.

Prosecutor Han expressed opposition, stating, "The conditional release system seems to be used to try defendants who would otherwise be detained under certain conditions, but since the principle of non-detention during investigation is already established in practice, I find it difficult to agree with the need for introducing the conditional release system."

However, Prosecutor Han supported "the full introduction of the warrant appeal system."

Attorney Kim stated, "The conditional release system should be discussed not as a supplement to the detention system or a means to prevent recidivism, but as a release system itself like bail. The most important point is to set conditions that are burdensome but achievable with effort, and caution should be exercised in using existing bail conditions as they are. It might also be good to establish separate special conditions by crime type."

A representative from the Korea Institute of Judicial Policy said, "The detention system is the most serious restriction on personal freedom, and it is a point where the positions of courts, prosecutors, and lawyers involved in criminal procedures sharply conflict. This joint academic conference provided a valuable opportunity for practitioners and academia to openly discuss improvement measures for the detention system, especially regarding extending detention periods and introducing a conditional release system, to seek desirable solutions."

The representative added, "Most attendees agreed on the need to relax the court detention period limits, but follow-up discussions are expected regarding the specific contents of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act and the introduction of the conditional release system. The Korea Institute of Judicial Policy will continue to devote itself to professional and in-depth research and discussions on various issues related to desirable judicial system improvements."

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