현행 형사소송법은 수사기관이 피의자의 출석을 요구하여 진술을 듣는 수사방법으로서 피의자신문을 규정하고 있다. 피의자신문의 법적 성격은 임의수사에 해당하므로 피의자가 이를 거부하지 않고 동의하는 경우에 진행될 수 있다고 보는 것이 형사소송법 제정 이래 오랫동안 이어져온 통설이었다. 다만, 2000년대 들어서 수사실무에서 형사소송법 제200조의 임의수사로서의 피의자조사와 구별하여 피의자신문을 강제수사로 보아야 하며, 그 귀결로서 체포 또는 구속된 피의자에 대하여는 피의자가 거부하더라도 조사실로 강제로 인치하여 체류시킬 수 있다는 주장이 제기된바 있다.
대상판례는 구속된 피의자에 대한 수사기관의 피의자신문은 임의수사의 방법으로 진행되어야 한다고 하면서도, 한편으로 구속된 피의자가 출석을 거부하는 경우에는 그 구속영장의 효력에 의하여 강제로 조사실로 구인하여 체류시킬 수 있다는 점을 밝히고 있다. 본 대법원 판례는 종전까지 피의자신문의 법적 성격을 임의수사로 해석하면서 피의자의 진술거부권을 두텁게 보호하려고 한 학계의 통설적 견해와는 배치되는 측면이 있다.
대상판례는 헌법이 보장하는 진술거부권을 실질적으로 침해할 우려가 있다는 점이나 피의자신문을 사실상 강제수사로 전환시킨다는 점 등에서 문제가 있다. 또한 대상판례에서 근거로 제시한 것처럼 구속영장의 효력 범위에 피의자신문을 목적으로 하는 구인이 포함되는지 여부에 대하여도 검토가 필요하다.
본고는 이러한 인식을 바탕으로 먼저 피의자신문의 법적 성격과 일본 학계의 영향을 받은 이른바 조사수인의무론의 찬반논쟁에 대하여 살펴본 후 신체구속피의자를 조사실로 강제로 인치하여 체류시킬 수 있는지에 대하여 검토해보도록 한다. 여기에서 구속피의자에 대한 조사실로의 강제 인치를 긍정한 판례의 부당함을 논증하고 있다. 아울러 조사수인의무를 긍정하는 본 대상판결이 실질규범으로 작동하는 현 수사실무 하에 있어서도 진술거부권의 행사와 변호인조력권의 보장을 위해 적법절차적 관점에서 지켜져야 할 피의자신문의 내재적 한계가 있음을 밝히고 있다.
The current Criminal Procedure Act allows investigators to interrogate suspects, a method of investigation that requires the suspect to attend and listen to statements. Since the suspect's interrogation is a voluntary investigation, it was a common belief that it could be conducted only if the suspect agreed without rejecting it. However, in the 2000s, it has been argued that the suspect's interrogation can be interpreted as a compulsory investigation in the investigation practice, and as a result, even if the suspect refuses, it can be forced to stay in the investigation room. The Supreme Court precedent said that the investigative agency's interrogation of the arrested suspect should be conducted by a voluntary investigation method, but on the other hand, if the arrested suspect refuses to attend, he/she can be forcibly detained and stayed in the investigation room by the effect of the arrest warrant. This precedent contradicts the conventional wisdom of academia that previously tried to protect the suspect's right to refuse to state while interpreting the legal nature of the suspect's interrogation as a voluntary investigation. This precedent has problems in that it is feared to substantially infringe on the right to refuse statements guaranteed by the Constitution, and that it virtually converts the suspect's interrogation into a forced investigation. In addition, as suggested as the basis in this case, it is necessary to review whether the scope of the validity of the arrest warrant includes job seekers for the purpose of interrogating suspects. Based on this perception, this paper first examines the legal nature of the suspect interrogation and the dispute over the duty of investigation influenced by Japanese academia. In addition, it is argued that the unfairness of the precedent that affirmed the forced acceptance of the arrest suspect to the investigation room is proved. In addition, even under the current precedent, it is revealed that there are certain limitations in the interrogation of suspects to exercise the right to remain silent and guarantee the right to appoint Defense Counsel.
The current Criminal Procedure Act allows investigators to interrogate suspects, a method of investigation that requires the suspect to attend and listen to statements. Since the suspect's interrogation is a voluntary investigation, it was a common belief that it could be conducted only if the suspect agreed without rejecting it. However, in the 2000s, it has been argued that the suspect's interrogation can be interpreted as a compulsory investigation in the investigation practice, and as a result, even if the suspect refuses, it can be forced to stay in the investigation room. The Supreme Court precedent said that the investigative agency's interrogation of the arrested suspect should be conducted by a voluntary investigation method, but on the other hand, if the arrested suspect refuses to attend, he/she can be forcibly detained and stayed in the investigation room by the effect of the arrest warrant. This precedent contradicts the conventional wisdom of academia that previously tried to protect the suspect's right to refuse to state while interpreting the legal nature of the suspect's interrogation as a voluntary investigation. This precedent has problems in that it is feared to substantially infringe on the right to refuse statements guaranteed by the Constitution, and that it virtually converts the suspect's interrogation into a forced investigation. In addition, as suggested as the basis in this case, it is necessary to review whether the scope of the validity of the arrest warrant includes job seekers for the purpose of interrogating suspects. Based on this perception, this paper first examines the legal nature of the suspect interrogation and the dispute over the duty of investigation influenced by Japanese academia. In addition, it is argued that the unfairness of the precedent that affirmed the forced acceptance of the arrest suspect to the investigation room is proved. In addition, even under the current precedent, it is revealed that there are certain limitations in the interrogation of suspects to exercise the right to remain silent and guarantee the right to appoint Defense Counsel.
