신체구속 피의자의 이른바 조사수인의무의 유무

Abstract

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.