The newly implemented pre-arrest interview system, introduced with the revised Criminal Procedure Act, is showing positive results.
According to the prosecutor's office on November 11, the pre-arrest interview system, which began on October 2, allows for direct consultations with suspects and their attorneys before an arrest warrant is requested, clarifying the issues and reasons for detention.
Unlike the previous post-arrest interview system, which assessed potential human rights violations after a suspect's detention, the pre-arrest interview system verifies the facts of the case and the appropriateness of the investigation from the warrant application stage.
The prosecutor's office stated, "New evidence has been identified during the interview process, and deficiencies in the evidence have been confirmed, leading to supplementary investigations and demonstrating the system's effectiveness."
Specifically, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutor's Office rejected a warrant application against a suspect accused of violating the Capital Markets Act, requesting further investigation based on insights gained from the interview that were not evident in the investigation records.
The Daegu District Prosecutor's Office in Andong interviewed a suspect accused of posting false information about 41 individuals on a Telegram channel, leading to a confession regarding the crime and cooperation in providing a previously inaccessible phone password.
The pre-arrest interview system also serves to protect victims' rights. In cases like sexual offenses, where direct confrontation between the suspect and victim is challenging, only the attorney for the victim may attend the interview.
The Namyangju branch of the Uijeongbu District Prosecutor's Office conducted an interview with a suspect charged with violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, allowing the attorney to observe the suspect's demeanor and expressions before applying for an arrest warrant.
The effectiveness of the pre-arrest interview system is also reflected in statistics. According to the prosecutor's office, the rejection rate of warrant applications by prosecutors increased by 6.1% compared to the previous month, while the rate of warrants requested by prosecutors that were rejected by the courts decreased by 0.7%.
The fact verification system is a procedure for directly confirming key facts and the claims of suspects and related parties in cases that are difficult to clarify through records alone.
Like the pre-arrest interview system, it has been operational since October 2, and the prosecutor's office is utilizing it to gain a comprehensive understanding of cases, including requesting supplementary investigations.
For example, the Ulsan District Prosecutor's Office confirmed the involvement of accomplices through fact verification regarding a suspect accused of fraudulently obtaining payments from 52 victims under the pretense of product payments, leading to a request for supplementary investigation.
In one instance, a suspect's detention was canceled based on findings from the fact verification process that were not apparent at the warrant application stage.
The Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office canceled the detention of a suspect, identified as A, who faced charges of property damage. The suspect had been detained for allegedly breaking a victim's mirror and threatening them with a towel rack. However, during the fact verification process, conflicting statements from the victim were uncovered, along with corroborating evidence such as photographs from the scene, resulting in the cancellation of the detention and a subsequent dismissal of charges due to insufficient evidence.
There have also been instances where illegalities during the investigation were identified, prompting requests for supplementary investigations.
The Seoul Southern District Prosecutor's Office identified unlawful searches during the fact verification process for a suspect charged with violating the Prostitution Punishment Act, leading to a request for supplementary investigation and the establishment of measures to prevent recurrence.
The prosecutor's office stated, "We will continue to faithfully operate each system in line with the intent of the Criminal Procedure Act amendment, focusing on discovering substantive truth, verifying the legality and appropriateness of investigations, ensuring the rights of defendants, and protecting the interests of those involved in cases."
They also added, "We plan to share exemplary operational cases and experiences from various prosecutor's offices and address any shortcomings that arise in the process."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.