Arrest Warrant Executed on Voluntarily Appearing Suspect... Supreme Court: "Arrest Unlawful, Conviction Upheld"

Suspect Voluntarily Appeared at Police Station After Agreeing to Attend
Police Executed Pre-Issued Arrest Warrant
Supreme Court: "Unlawful Arrest When No Risk of Flight or Evidence Destruction"
One Year and Six Months Prison Sentence Upheld for Procuring Prostitution

The Supreme Court has ruled that immediately executing an arrest warrant on a suspect who voluntarily appears for police questioning constitutes an unlawful arrest. However, the Court also held that even if the arrest procedure was unlawful, a conviction can still be upheld if sufficient evidence exists beyond a confession.

Seoul Seocho District Supreme Court. Photo by Yonhap News

According to the legal community on May 7, the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Ma Yongjoo) recently upheld the appellate court's verdict sentencing a man in his 40s, identified as A, to one year and six months in prison, a fine of 10 million won, and an additional forfeiture of 17.6 million won, on charges including procuring prostitution.

Between August 2020 and January 2021, A was brought to trial on charges of renting four officetel units in Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi Province, hiring female employees, and arranging prostitution for men who contacted him through advertisements on prostitution brokerage websites.

The key issue in the trial was whether the arrest procedure was unlawful. After receiving a summons from the police, A agreed to appear voluntarily at 3:00 p.m. on February 19, 2021. However, at approximately 2:58 p.m. that day, as A arrived on the street in front of the police station, undercover officers immediately executed a pre-issued arrest warrant and apprehended him. A’s side argued that evidence collected from this allegedly unlawful arrest was inadmissible, but both the first and second trial courts ruled that the procedure was lawful and found him guilty.

However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the police execution of the arrest was unlawful. The bench stated, “Even if an arrest warrant has been lawfully issued, the judicial police officer responsible for its execution must carefully examine whether the grounds and necessity for arrest are met, based on the circumstances at the time of execution.” The Court further stated, “Arresting a suspect who voluntarily appears and shows no particular behavior suggesting a risk of destroying evidence or fleeing is unlawful.”

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court determined that the unlawfulness of the arrest procedure does not overturn the verdict. The bench explained its decision to dismiss the appeal by stating, “Even excluding statements made under unlawful arrest, the remaining facts and evidence are sufficient to establish guilt. The unlawful execution of the arrest warrant does not appear to have fundamentally infringed upon the defendant’s right to defense or counsel or affected the outcome of the verdict.”

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