베트남 수사법제의 특징과 비교법적 고찰

Abstract

This study introduces the characteristics of Vietnam’s criminal justice system, focusing on the judiciary and investigative procedures, and provides a comparative legal analysis of similarities and differences with South Korea. The research findings highlight unique aspects of Vietnam’s legal system, including the absence of short-term detention, the existence of directive orders, and the involvement of witnesses in the arrest process. Recent legal reforms in Vietnam, such as the addition of human rights protection provisions, are also identified. Similar to South Korea, Vietnam establishes fundamental rights in criminal matters such as the presumption of innocence, the principle of non bis in idem, public trial rights, the right to claim compensation in criminal cases, freedom of the person, protection of personal information, and the right to privacy. Vietnam also stipulates rights during investigation processes, including the right to be informed of reasons for arrest or detention, the right not to be coerced into making self-incriminating statements, and the right to legal assistance. Vietnam’s central investigative agency, the Ministry of Public Security, appears to wield broader authority compared to South Korea’s investigative agencies. Particularly notable is Vietnam’s ability to enforce coercive measures with approval from investigative agencies alone, unlike South Korea, which generally requires a judge’s warrant. Consequently, Vietnam lacks substantial judicial oversight over investigative agencies, which may lead to potential abuse of investigative powers. Additionally, unlike South Korea’s warrant-based approach, Vietnam operates under an order-based system allowing for the arrest or detention of suspects upon orders from police investigative agencies. There is also a provision to detain individuals for up to three days in short-term detention facilities without orders, subject to approval by police investigation agencies. Furthermore, Vietnam utilizes a ‘witness system’ involving representatives from local administrative agencies as witnesses during arrest and detention processes, a stark contrast to South Korea. Given Vietnam’s legal mandate to mandate audio recording and video recording during interrogation procedures and the progressive expansion of rights and obligations for legal assistance, the protection of human rights in Vietnam’s criminal justice system is anticipated to become a crucial theme. In the future, effective support for Vietnam’s judicial reforms through mutual understanding of legal systems between the two countries and technological support aimed at improving audio and video recording systems during investigations will be necessary for the protection of South Korean nationals abroad.