Witness in Jeong Gyeong-sim Trial "Need Legal Counsel Assistance"... Constitutional Petition Dismissed

A witness in the first trial of former Dongyang University professor Jeong Gyeong-sim filed a constitutional complaint claiming the need for legal counsel to be present during court testimony, but the complaint was dismissed.

According to the legal community on the 7th, the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint filed by Professor Han In-seop of Seoul National University School of Law. Dismissal means that the case is concluded without substantive review when the requirements are not met or the claim is not subject to judgment.

Constitutional Court (Photo by Yonhap News)

Professor Han appeared as a witness at the trial of former professor Jeong held at the Seoul Central District Court on July 2, 2020, regarding allegations that the children of Cho Kuk, leader of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party, received falsely prepared internship certificates from the Seoul National University Public Interest and Human Rights Law Center.

Earlier, in November 2019, Professor Han had appeared before the prosecution as a suspect and refused to testify, so he requested the court to allow legal counsel to be present during witness examination to provide appropriate assistance such as refusal to testify.

However, the presiding judge rejected the request, stating, "There is no basis in the Criminal Procedure Act or Criminal Procedure Rules for a witness with the right to refuse testimony to consult with a lawyer before testifying or for a lawyer to present opinions on their behalf," and the decision to accept him as a witness was canceled.

Professor Han's side argued that it was wrong not to have regulations allowing a lawyer to participate in witness examination for witnesses who were also suspects in other cases, and filed a constitutional complaint in September 2020. They claimed that the Criminal Procedure Act's limitation of those allowed to participate in witness examination to "prosecutors, defendants, or lawyers" was incorrect.

However, the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint based on Article 68, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act, which generally does not allow constitutional complaints against court trials. The court stated, "Court trials include public authority judgments on derivative and incidental matters of litigation procedures besides the final judgment," and "This refusal act is a public authority judgment made by the presiding judge regarding litigation procedures, so a petition for review of this act is inappropriate."

Regarding the claim that the right to receive assistance from a lawyer and the lawyer's right to defend were violated, the court said, "The decision to accept the witness was canceled, and Professor Han was not examined as a witness until the conclusion of former professor Jeong's case," and "It cannot be recognized that the petitioner has self-relatedness to a fundamental rights violation."

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