Detention Warrant Review Hearing Assistance Case | Detention Warrant Dismissed for a Figure Connected to a Former President

This case is a matter with significant political and social repercussions related to a soldier who died in the line of duty, and the testimony at the hearing was treated all the more seriously because it drew attention as a key basis for gauging whether there had been external intervention.

Accordingly, in order to establish the genuineness and legitimacy of his statements and to fully exercise his right of defense, the client thoroughly prepared for the examination of the detention warrant together with a military attorney.

During the interrogation, the client sought to supplement the context of his statements by adding an explanation to the effect that, although he remembered hearing the remarks at the time, their clear source could not be confirmed.

The charges applied to the client were violation of the National Assembly Testimony and Appraisal Act and aggravated perjury intended to harm.

The client appeared as a witness at a National Assembly hearing and made false statements after taking an oath, which constituted a violation of Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the "Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly," the offense of perjury charge was applied.

At the same time, that statement was deemed to have been made for the purpose of harming a specific person, so the charge of aggravated perjury intended to harm under Article 152, Paragraph 2 of the "Criminal Act" was also applied.

Both charges are regarded as serious crimes that undermine judicial order, and aggravated perjury intended to harm in particular carries a heavier sentence than ordinary perjury.

Level of Punishment

For a suspect who has not been arrested, the judge may, as needed, first issue a detention warrant to bring the suspect in and then conduct the questioning.

After the suspect is brought in, the date and place of questioning are notified immediately, and the questioning proceeds.

At this stage, the questioning procedure proceeds as follows.

The examination of a detention warrant is an important procedure for safeguarding the suspect’s physical liberty, but filing for the examination does not necessarily mean that the warrant will be dismissed.

In practice, a substantial portion of cases in which a detention warrant has been requested are issued as requested after the court’s examination.

According to statistics from the National Court Administration, the average dismissal rate for detention warrants at district courts nationwide over the past 3 years is as follows.

Although the dismissal rate is rising slightly, about 80% of all requests still result in the issuance of a detention warrant.

In other words, although the examination of a detention warrant is a procedure for safeguarding the rights of the suspect, the court still issues warrants under a strict standard only where the necessity of detention is recognized.

Regarding the specific remarks that became the core background of the detention warrant request, the client initially stated that he had ‘not heard them directly,’ but during the questioning he explained that having said so was a judgment made in order to handle prudently an informal rumor within the military.

That is, out of concern that it might be mistaken for an official direction or order, he could not state definitively in court matters whose truth was uncertain.

The attorney emphasized that the statement did not arise from an intent to harm any specific person.

The attorney made clear that the client had testified within the limited scope of his memory and perception, and that the portion in which he declined to testify was also an exercise of a right under the Criminal Procedure Act.

The attorney reiterated that this was not conduct intended to conceal external direction or involvement, but the result of exercising caution with respect to matters he did not clearly know.

The charges of perjury and perjury with intent to harm applied in this case arose from a separate trial (the insubordination case before the military court).

Accordingly, there is room for a legal dispute over whether these charges fall within the scope of investigation set by the current special prosecutor act.

In response, the military law attorney pointed out that the special prosecutor was exceeding the scope of investigation by taking issue with statements not directly related to its original purpose (investigating allegations of undue pressure within the military) and raised the possibility of an abuse of legal jurisdiction.

The attorney explained, considering the client's status, that there was no risk of flight, and that, because the materials and the testimony of related persons concerning the hearing statement at issue had already been secured, there was no possibility of destruction of evidence.

The military attorney also emphasized that, taking into account the suspect's identity and career, as well as his cooperative attitude in the investigation, it was reasonable to allow him to exercise his right of defense without detention.

In addition, in accordance with the fundamental principle under the Criminal Procedure Act that 'detention is the exception and investigation without detention is the rule,' the attorney supported the determination that this matter did not satisfy the requirements for detention.

The client was in a situation where, owing to a matter related to a former president, the mere fact of attending court drew the attention of the media and a particular organization, and the client had previously experienced repeated threats and exposure.

Accordingly, the military law counsel cooperated with the Daeryun security center to provide assistance through a tailored protection strategy, including an advance review of movement routes, the establishment of measures to respond to the media and threats, and the deployment of professional protection personnel, so that the client could safely complete attendance on the day of the examination.

The dismissal of a detention warrant is a very difficult decision that must pass through the court's strict review.

In cases involving serious charges in particular, the necessity of detention is often strongly recognized, so dismissal is not easily obtained.

Therefore, to fully protect the client's rights and to bring about the result of a dismissal of the detention warrant through a careful and systematic legal response, the assistance of a specialized attorney is necessary.

Daeryun Law Firm has numerous specialized attorneys with an average of more than 10 years of experience.

In addition, through the operation of a separate security center, the firm can also provide a tailored personal protection service against physical threats that may arise when attending court.

If you are in a situation where such assistance is needed, please request a consultation.