헌법 제12조 제4항에서는 ‘누구든지 체포 또는 구속을 당한 때에는 즉시 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리를 가진다’라고 규정하고 있고, 형사소송법 제34조에서는 구속 피의자, 피고인의 변호인 조력을 받을 권리로서 “변호인 또는 변호인이 되려는 자는 신체구속을 당한 피고인 또는 피의자와 접견하고 서류 또는 물건을 수수할 수 있으며 의사로 하여금 수진하게 할 수 있다”라고 규정하여 피의자의 인권보장과 방어권 행사를 위하여 무기평등원칙에 입각한 변호인 조력을 받을 권리와 구속된 피고인에 대한 변호인 접견권을 명문으로 보장하고 있다. 그러나 우리나라 형사소송법상에는 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리 이외에 피의자신문시 변호인 참여에 대한 특별한 명문의 규정은 두고 있지 않았고 해석론상 다툼도 있었으나 대법원이 '송두율 재독교수 사건'에서 구금된 피의자에 대하여 형사소송법 규정을 유추 적용하여 피의자신문시 변호인의 참여권을 인정하였고 헌법재판소는 한걸음 더 나아가 불구속 피의자에게까지 이를 인정하였다. 이에 기하여 2007년도에 개정된 형사소송법 제243조의2에서는 변호인의 피의자신문 참여권을 명문화 하였으나 그 제한 사유로 “정당한 사유”라는 추상적인 규정을 둠으로써 해석상 논란이 되는 실정이다. 그러므로 이러한 제한사유에 대한 해석을 위하여 미국, 영국, 독일, 일본 등 외국의 입법례 및 판례를 살펴보고 분석하여 우리나라의 “정당한 사유”의 해석에 참고하는 것은 의미 있는 작업으로 보인다. 그러나 우리나라의 경우 비교법적으로 구속뿐만 아니라 불구속 피의자에게까지 광범위한 변호인 참여권을 인정하는 만큼 수사권의 위축과 관련하여 플리바게닝, 사법방해죄 도입 등 제도적 보완 장치가 필요하고 정당한 사유 해석에 소극적인 대법원의 태도에 대하여도 분석하여 향후 이에 대한 대비를 위해 실무 례를 축적하여 변호인의 진실의무와 조화되는 방향으로 변호인의 참여권을 인정 할 필요가 있다고 본다.

Neither the Constitutions of Korea and the Criminal Procedure has an explicit provision for the right to have a lawyer during interrogation Therefore, suspect is cast without any professional aids in the critical stage of criminal procedure until recently. However, right to counsel is the constitutional right. Therefore, a person arrested and held in custody in a police station or Prosecutors' Office is entitled, if he so requests, to consult a lawyer and is allowed to have a lawyer be present during the questioning and to get advice from the lawyer unless the lawyer unreasonably interfere with the questioning. That is to say, the request to counsel during interrogation is not allowed if, and for so long as, the Police officer believes on reasonable grounds that having lawyer be present during interrogation is likely to result in an accomplice of the person taking steps to avoid apprehension or the concealment, fabrication or destruction of evidence or the intimidation of a witness. However, thanks to the 2007 criminal procedure reform, we have explicit provision to the right. The problem is how we interpret the reasonable reason for the limitation of the right. In this paper, I touch on right to counsel during interrogation in the U.S. in comparison to that of Korea. I will also briefly review the right of other countries such as Germany and Japan, England and then review Korea’s Supreme Court decision and Constitution Court decision to understand the prospective and trends for Korean criminal procedure reform. In conclusion, after comparing several countries' systems, this provision materializes the Miranda rule in Korea. However, because we don't have plea bargaining and Obstruction of Justice provision, We need procedural safeguards regulating the abuse of right to counsel during interrogation by the lawyer.

Neither the Constitutions of Korea and the Criminal Procedure has an explicit provision for the right to have a lawyer during interrogation Therefore, suspect is cast without any professional aids in the critical stage of criminal procedure until recently. However, right to counsel is the constitutional right. Therefore, a person arrested and held in custody in a police station or Prosecutors' Office is entitled, if he so requests, to consult a lawyer and is allowed to have a lawyer be present during the questioning and to get advice from the lawyer unless the lawyer unreasonably interfere with the questioning. That is to say, the request to counsel during interrogation is not allowed if, and for so long as, the Police officer believes on reasonable grounds that having lawyer be present during interrogation is likely to result in an accomplice of the person taking steps to avoid apprehension or the concealment, fabrication or destruction of evidence or the intimidation of a witness. However, thanks to the 2007 criminal procedure reform, we have explicit provision to the right. The problem is how we interpret the reasonable reason for the limitation of the right. In this paper, I touch on right to counsel during interrogation in the U.S. in comparison to that of Korea. I will also briefly review the right of other countries such as Germany and Japan, England and then review Korea’s Supreme Court decision and Constitution Court decision to understand the prospective and trends for Korean criminal procedure reform. In conclusion, after comparing several countries' systems, this provision materializes the Miranda rule in Korea. However, because we don't have plea bargaining and Obstruction of Justice provision, We need procedural safeguards regulating the abuse of right to counsel during interrogation by the lawyer.

, , , , , , ,

Right to Counsel, Interrogation, Custody, Criminal Procedure Reform, Reasonable reason for the limitation