수사절차에서 외국인 피의자의 방어권 보장을 위한 절차적 개선방안

The number of foreigners staying in Korea has steadily increased, with 2.2 million people staying as of 2022, which is about 25 or 1 in our society. As the number of foreigners increases, crimes committed by foreigners are inevitably increasing. Foreigners are recognized as subjects guaranteed the right to defense in accordance with the interpretation of the Korean Constitution and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, due to language and legal and cultural differences, it is inevitable to be in a virtually vulnerable state in the investigation process. Therefore, procedural protection should be made so that foreign suspects do not receive discriminatory treatment in the investigation process. In this article, the laws related to the right to defense of foreign suspects in investigation procedures are reviewed, focusing on the duty to notify criminal procedures and rights, the right to counsel, and the right to interpret. In addition, practical problems arising from exercising the right to defense were identified, and procedural supplementation and improvement measures were sought. First of all, the management of translations and the use of interpretation applications were reviewed in cases where interpreters were not accompanied when notifying criminal procedures and rights. In particular, it is necessary to prepare standards and procedures related to usage standards in the reality that the use of interpretation applications increases on the front line with the development of AI technology. Regarding the right to counsel, the difficulty of appointing lawyers for foreign suspects shall be supplemented by applying the public defender system, and a list of private interpreters shall be provided and smart access shall be eased. Finally, regarding the right to receive interpretation, this article sought ways to ensure the quality of interpretation, to expand interpretation opportunities for the reality of lack of interpreters, and to ensure the quality of interpretation and that the object and judgment of interpretation should be made through objective procedures rather than arbitrary judgment by investigative agencies.