South Korea’s top court says arrest of suspect who voluntarily appeared was unlawful

South Korea’s Supreme Court has ruled that police unlawfully executed an arrest warrant by taking a suspect into custody after he voluntarily appeared at a police station, saying the grounds and necessity for arrest were not met.

According to the legal community on Wednesday, the Supreme Court’s First Division (Justice Ma Yong-ju presiding) upheld an appeals court ruling that sentenced a man identified only as A to 18 months in prison, a 10 million won ($7,300) fine and 17.6 million won in forfeiture for violating the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic (arranging prostitution).

Prosecutors said A rented four units in an officetel in Uijeongbu, north of Seoul, from August 2020 to January 2021, hired female workers and arranged paid sex for male customers who came after seeing online advertisements.

Lower courts imposed the same sentence and rejected A’s claim that police executed the arrest warrant illegally.

The Supreme Court said the request for and issuance of the arrest warrant were lawful, but the arrest carried out under the warrant was illegal.

A prosecutor at the Uijeongbu District Prosecutors Office sought the warrant on Jan. 22, 2021, at the request of an officer with the Gyeonggi Nambu Provincial Police Agency, and a judge at the Uijeongbu District Court issued it on Jan. 25, the court said.

Police searched and seized A’s bank account on Jan. 26 and the officetel he rented on Feb. 4. Just before the officetel search, police contacted A for the first time to ask whether he would participate in the warrant execution process, but he declined, saying he was in Jeonju, North Jeolla Province, among other reasons.

Police later repeatedly demanded that A appear, calling his mobile phone. A responded that it was difficult because he was out of town and that he would appear after consulting a lawyer, then agreed to come in voluntarily at 3 p.m. on Feb. 19. When he arrived at the police station at that time, police executed the warrant and arrested him.

The court said the conclusion that the grounds and necessity for arrest were satisfied was “markedly lacking in rationality” under common experience. It noted that A arrived exactly at the agreed time at the guidance desk at the main gate and was asking where the relevant department was located, showing no special behavior suggesting a risk of destroying evidence or fleeing.

The court added that, aside from the fact that a warrant had been issued, it was difficult to find circumstances supporting the reasons and need for arrest at the time of execution. It also said the “suspect arrest report” prepared immediately after the arrest listed only the circumstances of A’s voluntary appearance and his prior criminal record, without explaining why the warrant had to be executed or the basis for concluding there was a risk of evidence destruction or flight.

Still, the Supreme Court dismissed A’s appeal, saying the lower court did not commit an error that affected the verdict by misunderstanding legal principles on the warrant’s execution and alleged illegality in the investigation and trial procedures.

The court said interrogation records prepared by investigators and A’s written statements made while he was detained following the unlawful arrest could not be used as evidence of guilt. However, it said the remaining evidence cited in the first- and second-instance rulings, excluding A’s statements, was sufficient to find the criminal facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt.