Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Recognition and limitations of the right of counsel to participate in the interrogation of a detained suspect, and the availability of quasi-appeal against a disposition refusing participation
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Nov. 11, 2003, 2003Mo402 (ruling)
Case name: 준항고인용에대한재항고
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a detained suspect request the participation of counsel in an interrogation, may the disposition of an investigative agency refusing such a request be challenged by quasi-appeal, and in what circumstances may such participation be limited?
Holding
A disposition refusing the participation of counsel in the interrogation of a detained suspect is a disposition concerning detention under Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act and is subject to quasi-appeal. The Supreme Court held that where a detained suspect requests the participation of counsel, the investigative agency may not refuse it, and that participation may be limited only where special circumstances, such as a concern of interference with the interrogation or disclosure of investigative secrets, are objectively manifest.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피의자신문을 받음에 있어 변호인의 참여를 요구할 수 있고 그러한 경우 수사기관은 이를 거절할 수 없는 것으로 해석하여야 하고
Unofficial English translation
a suspect may demand the participation of a defense counsel while undergoing interrogation, and in such a case it must be interpreted that the investigative agency cannot refuse it, and
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
재항고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
신문을 방해하거나 수사기밀을 누설하는 등의 염려가 있다고 의심할 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 특별한 사정이 있음이 객관적으로 명백하여 변호인의 참여를 제한하여야 할 필요가 있다고 인정되는 경우에는 변호인의 참여를 제한할 수 있음은 당연하다
Unofficial English translation
Where it is objectively apparent that there exists a special circumstance for which there is probable cause to suspect a concern that the interrogation may be obstructed or that investigative secrets may be leaked, etc., and it is recognized that it is necessary to restrict the participation of a defense counsel, it is only natural that the participation of a defense counsel may be restricted
Factors
- 구금된 피의자에 대한 신문에 변호인의 참여(입회)를 불허하는 처분 역시 구금에 관한 처분에 해당하는 것으로 보아야 한다
- 누구든지 체포 또는 구속을 당한 때에는 즉시 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리를 가진다고 선언한 헌법규정
- 헌법상 보장된 다른 기본권과 사이에 조화를 이루어야 하며
- 신문을 방해하거나 수사기밀을 누설하는 등의 염려가 있다고 의심할 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 특별한 사정
Unofficial English translation
• A disposition refusing the participation (attendance) of a defense counsel in the interrogation of a detained suspect must also be regarded as falling within a disposition concerning detention
• A constitutional provision declaring that everyone has the right to the assistance of counsel immediately upon arrest or detention
• It must be in harmony with other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and
• A special circumstance where there is probable cause to suspect that there is a concern that the interrogation may be obstructed or that investigative secrets may be leaked, etc.
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
형사소송법이 아직은 구금된 피의자의 피의자신문에 변호인이 참여할 수 있다는 명문규정을 두고 있지는 아니하지만
Unofficial English translation
Although the Criminal Procedure Act does not yet contain an express provision that a defense counsel may participate in the interrogation of a detained suspect,
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 1991. 3. 28.자 91모24 결정(공1991, 1324), 헌법재판소 1992. 1. 28. 선고 91헌마111 결정(헌집4, 51), 헌법재판소 1995. 7. 21. 선고 92헌마144 결정(헌공11, 526)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What materials, and to what degree, must the investigative agency submit for special circumstances limiting the participation of counsel to be regarded as objectively manifest?
This reading is to be re-examined if an express provision governing the participation of counsel at the interrogation of a suspect is enacted or amended in the Criminal Procedure Act, so that the premises of the analogous application change.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
As a result of comparing with the independent reading of another line of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, while the readings diverged on axis 6 (Relation to precedent) and axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The fact that the right to participate and the requirements for its limitation were derived by analogous application in the absence of an express provision may be read as a new standard, but since the relation to precedent is not expressly stated in the original text, it may also be read as cannot be determined.
형사소송법이 아직은 구금된 피의자의 피의자신문에 변호인이 참여할 수 있다는 명문규정을 두고 있지는 아니하지만Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What materials, and to what degree, must the investigative agency submit for special circumstances limiting the participation of counsel to be regarded as objectively manifest?” vs Independent “What specific conduct of counsel constitutes special circumstances that objectively and manifestly give rise to a concern of interference with the interrogation?”
The first reading asks about the materials supporting the grounds for limitation and the degree of proof, while the independent reading asks about the specific conduct for which a concern of interference with the interrogation is to be recognized.
피의자신문을 받음에 있어 변호인의 참여를 요구할 수 있고 그러한 경우 수사기관은 이를 거절할 수 없는 것으로 해석하여야 하고Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below (Seoul District Court, Decision 2003Chogi2787 decided October 31, 2003) held, on the premise that a disposition refusing the participation of counsel in the interrogation of the quasi-appellant is subject to quasi-appeal, that the prosecution's disposition was unlawful and quashed it. The specific content of the reasons of the court below cannot be further confirmed from the opinion.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the finding of the court below on the availability of quasi-appeal was proper. While pointing out that there were inappropriate aspects in the reasoning of the court below, the Supreme Court held that, since the detained quasi-appellant had expressly requested the participation of counsel and the prosecution failed to submit materials supporting objectively manifest special circumstances warranting refusal, the disposition was unlawful and the conclusion quashing it was proper, and dismissed the reappeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases where the suspect was not in detention, so that the premise of a disposition concerning detention under Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not established
- Cases where objective materials supporting a concern of interference with the interrogation or disclosure of investigative secrets have been submitted and special circumstances are clearly established
- Cases where the suspect did not request the participation of counsel at the interrogation
Record verification notes
Before asserting the conclusion of this decision, one must first check the Records whether the investigative agency merely asserted grounds for limitation, such as national security or secrets relating to accomplices, or actually submitted materials supporting them.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구금된 피의자에 대한 피의자신문에 변호인의 입회를 불허하는 수사기관의 처분을 다투는 방법(=준항고) [2] 구금된 피의자에 대한 피의자신문시 변호인의 참여를 요구할 권리가 있는지 여부(적극) 및 그 권리의 제한 가능성 유무(적극) [3] 구속된 피의자에 대한 검사의 피의자신문시에 피의자의 요구에도 불구하고 변호인의 참여를 거부한 검사의 처분이 위법하다는 이유로 이를 취소한 원심결정을 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The method of contesting an investigative agency's disposition refusing the attendance of a defense counsel at the interrogation of a detained suspect (=quasi-appeal) [2] Whether the right to demand the participation of a defense counsel exists at the interrogation of a detained suspect (affirmative) and whether such right is capable of being restricted (affirmative) [3] A case holding that the order of the court below, which revoked a prosecutor's disposition that had refused the participation of a defense counsel at the interrogation of a detained suspect despite the suspect's demand, on the ground that the disposition was unlawful, was justifiable
Summary of the holding
[1] 형사소송법 제417조는 검사 또는 사법경찰관의 구금에 관한 처분에 불복이 있으면 법원에 그 처분의 취소 또는 변경을 청구할 수 있다고 규정하고 있는바, 이는 피의자의 구금 또는 구금 중에 행하여지는 검사 또는 사법경찰관의 처분에 대한 유일한 불복방법인 점에 비추어 볼 때, 영장에 의하지 아니한 구금이나 변호인 또는 변호인이 되려는 자와의 접견교통권을 제한하는 처분뿐만 아니라 구금된 피의자에 대한 신문에 변호인의 참여(입회)를 불허하는 처분 역시 구금에 관한 처분에 해당하는 것으로 보아야 한다. [2] 형사소송법이 아직은 구금된 피의자의 피의자신문에 변호인이 참여할 수 있다는 명문규정을 두고 있지는 아니하지만, 신체를 구속당한 사람의 변호인과의 접견교통권이 헌법과 법률에 의하여 보장되고 있을 뿐 아니라 누구든지 체포 또는 구속을 당한 때에는 즉시 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리를 가진다고 선언한 헌법규정에 비추어, 구금된 피의자는 형사소송법의 위 규정을 유추·적용하여 피의자신문을 받음에 있어 변호인의 참여를 요구할 수 있고 그러한 경우 수사기관은 이를 거절할 수 없는 것으로 해석하여야 하고, 이렇게 해석하는 것은 인신구속과 처벌에 관하여 "적법절차주의"를 선언한 헌법의 정신에도 부합한다 할 것이나, 구금된 피의자가 피의자신문시 변호인의 참여를 요구할 수 있는 권리가 형사소송법 제209조, 제89조 등의 유추적용에 의하여 보호되는 권리라 하더라도 헌법상 보장된 다른 기본권과 사이에 조화를 이루어야 하며, 구금된 피의자에 대한 신문시 무제한적으로 변호인의 참여를 허용하는 것 또한 헌법이 선언한 적법절차의 정신에 맞지 아니하므로 신문을 방해하거나 수사기밀을 누설하는 등의 염려가 있다고 의심할 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 특별한 사정이 있음이 객관적으로 명백하여 변호인의 참여를 제한하여야 할 필요가 있다고 인정되는 경우에는 변호인의 참여를 제한할 수 있음은 당연하다. [3] 구속된 피의자에 대한 검사의 피의자신문시에 피의자의 요구에도 불구하고 변호인의 참여를 거부한 검사의 처분이 위법하다는 이유로 이를 취소한 원심결정을 정당하다고 한 사례.
Order
재항고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제417조 [2] 형사소송법 제34조, 제89조, 제209조, 헌법 제12조 [3] 형사소송법 제34조, 제89조, 제209조, 헌법 제12조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger