피의자 신문에 있어서 헌법상 적법절차 원리의 구현

The request for attendance by the notice of false fact for the interrogation of the suspect is the activity directly opposed to the appropriateness of laws as restricting the right to defense of the suspect because it makes the suspect not have the opportunity to prepare the examination and then the voluntary accompanying generates the problem of the breach of legal procedure because it infringes the constitutional freedom of body and the various rights like the right to interview and communicate with the lawyer granted by the constitution and the criminal procedure law are not ensured. The statement obtained in the state of not advising to the suspect should be considered to not have the admissibility of evidence due to the breach of the due process of law In the practical affairs of investigation, the cruel investigations such as the torture, the violence of body, the threat, the wild words, the high-handed examining attitude, the belittling words and actions and all-night investigation, etc are practically continued. These behaviors of investigating organizations are the behaviors clearly opposite to the due process of law and the evidence obtained in those ways like the confession, etc should be excluded from the admissibility of evidence. The criminal procedure law stipulates that the public prosecutor or the judicial police officer is the subject of interrogation the suspect through the regulations of the Article 200, 241 and 242. That the criminal procedure law limits the subject of interrogation to the public prosecutor and the judicial police officer can be understood to protect the human rights of the suspect to the maximum as considering the whole understandings and experiences about the procedure of interrogation. It is regarded as appropriate that the interrogation, none the less, executed while being in breach of the regulation on the subject of interrogation in the criminal procedure law can not be allowed and the admissibility of evidence of the evidence obtained by such interrogation also cannot be admitted. It meets the due process of law to narrowly interpret the range of 'just reason' related to the limit of lawyer's right to participate to the maximum and the evidence obtained through the investigation achieved while limiting the lawyer's right to participate despite of being not concerned to such reason to limit the right to participate should be excluded from the admissibility of evidence.