With amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act limiting the direct and supplementary investigations conducted by prosecutors, moves are emerging to reinforce evidence during the trial process by utilizing search and seizure warrants and orders for the production of evidence issued by the court. While there are expectations that this will allow for the swift acquisition of materials necessary to maintain public prosecutions, concerns have also been raised that it could appear as if the court is effectively participating in investigations.
Prosecutors Begin Reinforcing Evidence During Trial
Following the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act and the launch of the Public Prosecution Service system, it has become difficult to use statements and materials collected directly by prosecutors as trial evidence, making the acquisition of evidence during the trial stage a new alternative. The method involves prosecutors requesting that the court issue search and seizure warrants or applying for fact-finding inquiries and orders for the production of evidence to bolster the materials needed to maintain the prosecution.
Search and seizure warrants issued by the court during the trial process can be executed by Public Prosecution Service staff under the direction of a prosecutor. Search and seizure operations targeting electronic information are also carried out according to relevant procedures, and the processes of warrant request, issuance, and execution, as well as the acquired materials, are recorded in a prescribed manner. As it requires a separate execution procedure following the court’s judgment, the structure does not allow for materials to be secured solely based on a request from the bench.
Evidence Acquisition Used in Gambling Site Case
This method was used on a limited basis even before the system reform. In December of last year, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office arrested and indicted an individual in their 30s, identified as A, on charges of acting as a cash withdrawer for an illegal gambling site organization and withdrawing and delivering 1.5 billion won in criminal proceeds.
When A, who had confessed to the crime during the investigation stage, denied the charges at trial, the prosecutor requested that the court issue a search and seizure warrant for map application search history and an order for the production of financial transaction information. Through this, they confirmed A’s movement path and transaction history, and requested that the police conduct a supplementary investigation into the history of fraud damage reports related to the accounts in question.
In September of last year, the first trial court found A guilty of all charges and sentenced them to four years in prison.
Supplementary Investigations Through Police Take Time
For prosecutors to secure necessary evidence through the police, they must go through several procedures, such as requesting supplementary investigations and sending additional case files. Another limitation mentioned is that it is difficult for police officers who are not directly involved in the trial to fully grasp the issues of the case and the necessity of the evidence.
As a result, there is a forecast that cases where the prosecutor participating in the trial and the court directly determine the scope of necessary materials, and where the court secures them through warrants or orders for the production of evidence, may increase. Especially in cases where digital data is the core evidence, there is room for search procedures targeting electronic information newly submitted during the trial to be utilized.
Mixed Views on Expanded Role of the Court
The legal community has mixed views on the court’s involvement in securing evidence at the trial stage. While some argue that it enables the discovery of substantive truth by securing necessary materials during the trial, others raise concerns that it could be perceived as the court participating in investigations.
One deputy chief-level prosecutor said that because prosecutors and judges participating in the trial know the scope of necessary materials best, the acquisition of evidence through the court is bound to increase. On the other hand, a judge in the metropolitan area pointed out that the role of the court is judgment, not investigation, and that the burden of proving charges lies with the prosecutor. The implication is that if evidence is insufficient, a verdict of not guilty should be rendered.
Another judge said that in cases where charges are strong based on circumstances but evidence is lacking, one might consider issuing a warrant to discover substantive truth. However, if the court itself sets out to secure evidence, the defendant’s side could raise issues regarding the court’s presumption of guilt, making the boundary between the principle of the presumption of innocence and the fairness of the trial a point of contention.
Source: news.jkn.co.kr
