[Interview file] A small ball shot by the motherland family'rejection of testimony'

"I will follow Article 148 of the Penal Code."

Following former Minister Cho Kook, who repeated the same words more than 300 times two weeks ago, Professor Jeong Gyeong-shim, who attended the trial of the representative of the Open Democratic Party last week, also exercised the right to veto testimony.

Their refusal to testify was documented by most of the media outlets covering the Central District Law, and once again a controversy arose.

The controversy mainly resulted in a'evaluation struggle' against Cho's family.

'They say they will reveal it in court, but now they change their words','the defendants who have been persecuted by the prosecution against the reform are holding up their legitimate shields'.

Two portraits of the fallen family and the holy family were hung again in the courts of public opinion.

However, there is a view that the exercise of the veto of testimony by these families is not simply a matter to be treated as an episode in a news article.

The small ball raised by their refusal to testify could become a concern for the entire judicial system, including future investigations and trials, and could fall.

In the court of Rep. Kang-wook Choi on the 15th, Professor Chung's son said that he could not testify in court because he could be punished.

A similar statement came from Professor In-seop Han, who appeared as a witness at the trial of Professor Kyung-Shim Chung on July 2.

level to receive the assistance of high-Counsel They exercised the defense rights of individuals summoned to court as suspects.

There have been criticisms of being irresponsible for refusing to testify, but some point out that they should not be condemned for exercising their natural rights stipulated in the law.

A high court deputy judge said, "All witnesses are notified of the right to refuse to testify from the outset, but suspects in general criminal cases often cannot actually exercise their veto."

He said, "The evaluation of a person's behavior may be different, but since the right to refuse to testify is a core right compared to warrantism, it is dangerous to attack the exercise of the right itself."

Of course, in the case of former Minister Cho, there is a reason for the criticism of public opinion because he has emphasized'court time' by emphasizing the meaning of "I will reveal it in court" in front of the prosecution or the media.

After the trial was over, the lawyer of Professor Kyung-Shim Chung gave an interpretation that "I understand the story of Cho as the words that correspond to the case in which he was the defendant." It's not divided, so I can't erase the feeling of being somewhat stubborn.

Nevertheless, their refusal to testify has a positive meaning in that they have shown the shields of individuals who are under pressure from the state power as a'suspect'.

Former Minister Cho also gave his own meaning in the court, saying, "As a criminal law scholar, I have emphasized the historical significance and importance of the right to refuse to state statements."

However, when such a case goes beyond the legal threshold of these'high-ranking masterpieces' and is manifested in numerous general criminal cases, there are realistic concerns.

Attorney Hong-Seok Yang (Jigong Law Firm), who is also an attorney for Professor In-seop Han, points out that many things need to be changed if such a refusal of testimony by a suspect witness becomes a routine.

First of all, it refers to practical changes in investigative agencies such as the prosecution and police.

“With the pressure to obtain a statement by filing as a suspect and threatening with prosecution, it may be difficult to use it as an appropriate method of proof at trial,” he said. “The investigation method must be changed.”

It also talks about the need to improve the legal system.

The problem is that there is little discussion in detail about this.

Attorney Yang said, "There is no paper on the refusal of the witness's statement," and worried about the vacuum of discussion.

, the prosecution's ability to testify in court will be limited from 2022 on the contents of the record that the prosecutor received by interrogating the suspect during the investigation.

Unlike now, if the accused denies the contents of a prosecution record in court, the record cannot be used as evidence in court.

In the course of the trial, the contents of the prosecution's investigation become meaningless, and in some cases, the court may have to get a statement from the beginning.

Apart from the evaluation of this, anyway, other evidence than the statement obtained by the investigative agency in a future trial must be considered important in uncovering the truth.

Some say that if a witness's refusal to testify along with this change becomes common, investigative agencies should be given additional means to discover the substance of the crime.

"Even in France, which is known as the birthplace of the modern concept of human rights, even in the case of France, which is known as the origin of the modern concept of human rights, the authority to intercept or track accounts is much broader," said Kim Jong-min, a former prosecution lawyer.

On the premise that "strong and certain controls should be put in place," he said, "in line with the limitation of the evidence capacity of prosecutors' filings and the generalization of refusal of statements by suspect witnesses, investigative agencies should also be given additional means to discover the substance of the crime.

It is argued that investigative agencies also need additional tools to balance human rights protection and criminal discovery in judicial proceedings.

In Korea, there was a history of illegal interception by the Ministry of Security and Security and the National Intelligence Service just a few decades ago, so this is a matter that must be approached carefully.

But the important thing is that the discussion needs to be more specific and active.

These assumptions may seem like distant stories right now.

However, as several trials of the so-called ``higher'' proceed simultaneously, from the trial of former Minister Cho to the alleged abuse of judicial administration indicted by the former Supreme Court, the criminal procedure law handled in the courts is becoming more and more microscopic.

After several research and development and clinical trials have been completed in these courts, there is no law that no detailed concerns regarding'refusal to testify of suspects' even in general criminal cases.

While the'prosecution reform' has become a hot topic and demands for human rights investigations have risen, accusations to thoroughly investigate politically and morally controversial issues go to the prosecution without fail.

'Guarantee of human rights' and'thorough investigation of the truth'.

The two demands that diverge in many circumstances often cause conflict in courts.

Just as an engine with pressure in different directions stops with only a small fault, details are important for a complex judicial system to function properly.

Even more so when that huge system is shifting gears and moving in new directions.

However, my head is tilted as to whether close attention is being paid to the prosecution reform, behind the torch of judicial reform, and the details of the legal system.

When Cho and his family have refused to testify hundreds of times, attention should be directed elsewhere.

In reality, the responsibility and authority to take care of the detailed tasks posed by their'refusal of testimony' lie much more on those who appointed and defended Cho.

(Photo = Yonhap News)