Judges and Prosecutors Shared Concerns Over 'Yeongjang' Warrant

Published 08 Jan.2024 14:04(KST)

Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office, Lecture Inviting Judges

A warrant (令狀) refers to a written document authorizing or ordering compulsory measures such as arrest, detention, seizure, or search. It is requested by a prosecutor and issued by a judge. Between the need for swift investigations and the protection of human rights, judges and prosecutors shared a time of reflection regarding the ‘warrant.’

[Photo by Beopryul Newspaper]

On the 4th, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office held a lecture inviting judges on the theme of ‘The Value and Weight of Warrants from a Judge’s Perspective’ in the large conference room on the 2nd floor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office in Sinjeong-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul.

This lecture was held to discuss the difficulties surrounding warrants, such as swift investigations and human rights protection, jointly between the courts and the prosecution. The invited lecture, held at the recommendation of Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok (55, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 27), was conducted for all employees of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office.

The lecture was delivered by Kim Jeong-min (51, class 29), Chief Judge of the Seoul Southern District Court. Judge Kim, who was appointed as a judge at the Seoul Western District Court in 2000, served as the judge in charge of warrants in 2022 while working as a chief judge at the Seoul Central District Court.

Starting the lecture, Judge Kim said, “Compulsory investigation is an indispensable procedure for investigative agencies,” and added, “It is both the beginning and the end of an investigation, and I believe the gateway is the ‘warrant.’” He emphasized, “Since the suspect’s rights and human rights are restricted, I think compulsory investigations and warrants must be approached very cautiously and with gravity.”

Judge Kim also shared his impressions of prosecutors based on his experience conducting substantive warrant reviews.

He said, “There were prosecutors who submitted detention warrants along with 200 to 300-page opinions on the necessity of detention,” and added, “Reading such opinions gave a clear overview of the investigation process and helped identify which additional evidence needed to be examined.” He further noted, “Reading these opinions made me feel how thoroughly the prosecution was investigating, which made working overtime feel less unfair.”

He also pointed out areas for joint consideration by the courts and prosecution depending on the times.

Judge Kim said, “Recently, there has been a significant increase in cases where audio recordings are submitted as evidence,” and added, “While audio recordings are important direct evidence in many cases, it is necessary to consider the atmosphere where ‘there must be at least an audio recording to prosecute.’” He continued, “Most bribery, corruption, and breach of trust cases are crimes committed indirectly, so I wonder if prosecution is difficult without audio recordings,” and questioned, “To what extent should something be regarded as direct evidence?”

Judge Kim also mentioned the need to reconsider the concept of detention during prolonged trials. He explained, “Cases are becoming more complex, and trials are prolonged due to disputes over procedures by the parties involved,” and added, “As trials lengthen, there are many cases where detained defendants are released during the trial.” He said, “The concept of detention during the investigation phase needs to change,” and suggested, “If the trial results in a guilty verdict, there is a need to change the paradigm, such as imposing heavy sentences.”

Additionally, time was spent clearing up misunderstandings surrounding substantive warrant reviews.

Judge Kim said, “There is a rumor that judges take breaks during the process of deciding whether to issue a warrant,” but clarified, “However, there really is no time to rest on the day of the review. Unlike criminal trials, defense attorneys submit a large volume of documents on the day of the warrant review, so reading and considering all of them takes up all the time.”

He also explained that considering the warrant dismissal rates by court is a misunderstanding. Judge Kim said, “Warrant dismissal rates can vary by court and type of warrant,” and gave an example, “For instance, in a multi-level fraud case, whether the prosecution requests detention warrants for only five key figures or for all ten members of the organization can greatly affect the warrant dismissal rate.”