"It is like torturing before the modern age, 'You know your sin,' to bury and ask for it all night without sleeping." "Evening investigations can be repaired if the defendant / attorney agrees, but the value of the evidence of such a record is" illegal "(written at night). "Only one judge of the criminal justice remained."

● A criticism of the "nightly investigation" ... Now is?

On the day when the singer Choi Jong-hoon (former FT Island) was investigated by the police for 21 hours in a row regarding the suspicion of drunk driving investigation, I recalled an article written last year by a judge. Evening investigation was illegal even if the suspect and the counsel agreed, and it was a shout that the judgment of one criminal trial judge who rejected the value of the evidence of the investigation by night investigation could correct this mistake.
This article, which caused minor repercussions, was a judge of the Supreme Court of the Seoul High Court of the Kang Min-gu on October 16 last year, including the court's internal communication network. However, this article was not written for people like Jong Hoon. Lim Jong-hun, the former chief judge of the court, attended the prosecution's nightly investigation and announced that he would reveal his usual opinion on his return home. Several judges who did not usually agree with Mr. Kang 's remarks were generally positive about this article. But it has not yet been heard that celebrities have raised their voices in criticism of the 21-hour investigation by the police.
Judge Investigations and Celebrity Investigations: Same Practices - Different Reactions

It is not only investigation at night. Judges, particularly former Chief Justice and Justices, attended the prosecution, raising the criticism of so-called "photo line" practices. Judges criticized the practice of making the time of attendance of the main suspects known to the investigating authorities in advance through the articles in newspapers. However, the judges who preside not only on their peers but also on the last stage to protect the human rights of the entire nation, on the occasion of the singer's victory and the fact that Jung Jun-young is standing on the photo line in front of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency and receiving more coverage from reporters than the former justices I have not heard news from publicly expressed concern.

How about the publicity of the blood that the judges have voiced and criticized throughout the judicial farm investigation? In the process of investigating the so-called Burning Sun case and the suspicion of entertainer-public relations, the blood of entertainers is being reported to the media almost in real time. Even some of the entertainers who were not subject to the investigation were reported to some media from the KakaoTalk chat room to the conversation I was talking about. However, judges who had questioned the publicity of bribes when they were investigated by fellow judges, have not yet seen a public criticism of the police and the media regarding this report. The controversy surrounding the seizure of search warrants, which became controversial last year when the court administration was investigated, is also similar.
● "Consistent duality" of our society over investigation,

Nightly investigation does not mean good practice. It does not mean that it is absolutely necessary for the investigating agency to inform the time of the suspect's attendance. It is not the intention of unconditionally affirming the publication of the bloody facts. It is hard to agree with the claim that it is easy to issue a search warrant or arrest warrant. I do not think judges are the only group with this duality. The problem is the consistent duality that our society shows when it is investigated for an event in which social attention is concentrated.

Nightly investigation, photo line practice, bloody fact announcement, warrant issue. These issues are issues that have been a problem on either side whenever there has been an investigation of major events over the past decade. But there was hardly any consistency in either side. When our side is investigated, nightly investigations, disclosure of time of attendance, publicity of bloody facts, etc., must be improved and it is the reason why investigation agencies should be reformed. However, when the opponents are investigated, they do not feel the need to raise a problem, or even to be praised. For example, the media that reported the allegations when our side was investigated became bad press that declared the blood, but the media reporting the allegations when the opposing parties were investigated had the courage to do the right to know the people It becomes a true press.

This consistent duality has been the biggest obstacle that has prevented the practices and procedures surrounding investigations from moving in the direction of protecting human rights. A politician or scholar who had a problem with the nightly investigation took a serious look at this man's question about the investigation at night, while watching the scene where the opponent was ridiculed for a picture taken of the nightly investigation. There will be few. A person who had trouble with the publication of the blood on our side waved an article reported by the opponent on the prosecution and shouted "The truth finally came out" It is uncommon for people to consider this person's question in a meaningful way. The real problems that have to be searched seriously and examined in a calm and realistic and reasonable way have been consumed as a subject of controversy and have been faded every time.
● "I can not confirm the ban ..."

I may have been disgusted, but I will listen to one more recent example. During many years of Justice / Prosecutorial coverage, the most commonly heard word from the press was, "You know, I can not confirm the ban on leaving the country." As one of the first steps taken by the investigating agency is to stop the departure of the main suspects, the first report on major criminal investigations often starts with the ban on leaving the country. However, I have never been able to "officially" confirm the fact that the Ministry of Justice or the prosecutor's office reported the ban on departure. It was justified that it was in violation of the regulations of public notice, interfered with the investigation, and violated the human rights of the suspect.

The ban on the emergency departure of Mr. Kim 's former vice minister was reported solely in a press release on March 22, 2019. A few hours later, on March 23, 2013, at 03:03, the Justice Department officially announced that it had forbidden Kim to leave the country. It is often the case that the media use their own methods of reporting to independently report the ban on leaving the country. However, it is extremely unusual for the Justice Department to officially announce the prohibition of leaving the country in the middle of the night.

It is not that Kim Hak 's allegations are unjust, nor does it mean that Kim' s investigation is wrong. It means that human rights should be protected on the basis of fair standards, whether good or bad, judge or entertainer, our side or the other side, and the behavior of the investigating agency should be evaluated on a consistent basis.

● Consistency that is applied to rape men, and the resulting ...

Miranda, who left her name in the Criminal Justice Textbook with the "Miranda Principles" that begins with "You can exercise your right to remain silent ..." was a rape. It was clear that the 18-year-old girl was raped, but in 1966, the US Supreme Court ruled that a confession of Miranda's testimony could not be evidence because the investigating agency did not give Miranda the right to veto the statement. Thanks to the consistent protection of the human rights of rape victims, the Miranda principle of American society has become a representative shield protecting the human rights of the people.

As long as we continue to double the rhetoric and sometimes the cheering and sometimes cheating and sometimes cheering on our side and the investigation of our opponents, we will never get a realistic and powerful shield to protect the human rights of the people without hindering the realization of justice. It will not be possible.

(Photo: Yonhap News)