All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2016Da266736 Decided December 27, 2018 【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Whether the investigative agency may impose restriction through a disposition, etc. on the defense counsel’s right to contact and interview the criminal defendant without recourse to law (negative) In a case where the criminal suspect, etc., who has an accurate understanding of the meaning and scope of the right to assistance of counsel that is guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, willingly relinquishes the right based on his/her rational judgment, whether that person may be forced into interviewing his/her defense counsel (negative), and in a case where the investigative agency rejects the request for interview even though the above requirement is not satisfied, whether the State’s compensatory liability arising from the infringement upon the defense counsel’s right to contact and interview is established (affirmative) and where the burden of proof thereof lies in [2] In a case where: (a) Overseas Chinese A, born and raised in North Korea, entered the Republic of Korea and was admitted to and interrogated by the Central Joint Interrogation Center, a temporary protection facility installed and operated by the head of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) pursuant to the North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act; (b) Defense Counsel B, etc., appointed as an attorney for Overseas Chinese A, filed an application for an interview on nine different occasions, which were rejected in their entirety by the head of NIS and the NIS investigator; (c) Defense Counsel B, etc., filed a claim for compensatory damages against the State on the grounds of the infringement upon a defense counsel’s right to contact and interview, the case holding that the lower judgment was justifiable, which determined that the State had the responsibility to compensate emotional and psychological harm inflicted upon Defense Counsel B, etc., as the head of NIS or NIS investigator’ rejection of Defense Counsel B, etc.’s request to contact and interview with Overseas Chinese A infringed upon a defense counsel’s right to contact and interview, thereby constituting unlawful performance of duties |
|
