Prosecutors reject more arrest warrant requests ... court rejection rate falls instead

[Financial News] The rate at which prosecutors reject arrest warrant applications submitted by police has risen. By contrast, the rate at which courts reject warrants sought by prosecutors has fallen. The shift followed the introduction of pre-warrant interviews and fact-finding procedures under the revised Criminal Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea, which took effect on the 2nd of last month.
The Prosecution Service announced the results of the two procedures in a notice to the media on the 11th, saying that prosecutors’ rejection rate for arrest warrant applications rose by 6.1 percentage points from the previous month, while judges’ rejection rate for cases in which prosecutors sought arrest warrants fell by 0.7 percentage points.
Pre-warrant interviews are provided for under Article 201(7) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea, while fact-finding is provided for under Article 245-13. An interview is a procedure in which prosecutors directly hear the views of the suspect and defense counsel and examine the issues in the case and the grounds for detention before deciding whether to seek a warrant. Fact-finding is a procedure for establishing the facts by hearing statements from the suspect, people involved in the case, and the investigating agency. The Prosecution Service issued guidelines and put the procedures into effect on the 2nd of last month.
The new procedures differ in nature from the existing interviews held after a detained case is referred to prosecutors, which were used to check for human rights violations by investigative agencies. They are newly established procedures that examine both the substance of a case and the propriety of the investigation from the warrant application stage onward.
When an interview revealed insufficient evidence, prosecutors asked police to conduct a supplementary investigation. In a fraud case involving money obtained under the pretext of investing in IPO shares, the Busan Prosecution Office held an interview attended by the investigating agency, the suspect, and defense counsel, then rejected the warrant after requesting a supplementary investigation into areas where the evidence was inadequate. In a case involving alleged stock-price manipulation in violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the Seoul Southern Prosecution Office heard the suspect’s statements, which were not reflected in the case records, and arguments concerning illegally obtained evidence. It cited the need for a supplementary investigation as grounds for rejecting the warrant.
In another case, an interview led to a warrant application. In a case involving a violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, in which false information about 41 people was posted on a Telegram channel, the suspect admitted to the offense during an interview and provided a phone password. The Andong branch office then asked police to conduct a supplementary investigation, secured evidence, and sought a warrant.
Fact-finding was also used as a means of canceling detention. In a property-damage case, the Seoul Central Prosecution Office interviewed not only the suspect, who had been referred in custody, but also the victim. After finding that the victim’s statement contradicted the alleged facts of the offense, it canceled the detention and issued a no-suspicion disposition. The Andong branch office canceled a suspect’s detention after confirming that, according to the investigating agency, the suspect became aware of the offense later than the time of the alleged offense stated in the arrest warrant.
There were also cases in which unlawful conduct during investigations was uncovered. In a case involving a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Procuring Prostitution and Associated Acts, the Seoul Southern Prosecution Office heard defense counsel’s claim that evidence had been illegally obtained and questioned an investigating agency official to establish the facts. It emerged that investigators had forcibly broken into a room without a prior warrant, obtained evidence through voluntary submission, and referred the case without applying for a subsequent warrant. The Prosecution Service called for corrective action, including a supplementary investigation and measures to prevent a recurrence.
However, how materials obtained during fact-finding may be used as evidence has not yet been determined. A Prosecution Service official said, “We will develop specific ways to use as evidence materials submitted by people involved in cases and others during fact-finding,” adding, “We will share examples of how Prosecution Service offices at various levels are operating the procedures and incorporate any shortcomings into the guidelines.”
[email protected] Kim Dong-gyu Reporter