South Korea's Constitutional Court holds first public hearing on a court-ruling appeal

The Constitutional Court held its first public hearing since the trial petition system took effect, in a case brought by lawyer Kim Young-su (김영수) of law firm Daeryun (법무법인 대륜) against the Supreme Court. The hearing began at 3 p.m. on 21 October in the court's main courtroom in Seoul. Yonhap reported that it ended after four hours, and Newsis also put its length at about four hours, while Seoul Shinmun said the debate ran for more than three hours. Hankook Ilbo reported that about 40 members of the public crowded the courtroom 20 minutes before it began. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]

The dispute dates to July 2022, when special counsel Ahn Mi-young's (안미영) team, which was investigating the death of Sgt. Lee Ye-ram (이예람), searched Kim's home and office. Kim was a witness, not a suspect. He asked for a copy of the warrant and was refused. He filed a challenge in court, and the Seoul Central District Court cancelled the search but found no duty to hand over a copy to someone who was not a suspect. Newsis reported that the Supreme Court rejected the appeals of both Kim and the special counsel on 26 February. Kim then filed the trial petition. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]

Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act says a copy must be handed over when the person subject to the search is a defendant. Seoul Economic Daily and Chosun Ilbo reported that Article 219 applies the rule to investigators' searches. Kim argued that the rule treats people searched as suspects and as non-suspects differently without a reasonable basis, which he said violates the right to equality. He said showing a warrant of dozens of pages briefly is not enough to check the scope of the search, and that investigators could avoid booking a suspect to escape the duty to hand over a copy. [ 1 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 9 , 11 ]

The Justice Ministry, represented by the Government Legal Service Corporation, said it is for the legislature to decide who receives a copy. Its lawyers said handing copies to non-suspects could expose an investigation and a suspect's private information and allow evidence to be destroyed. Lawyer Kim Sang-chan (김상찬) said the Constitution requires showing a warrant, not handing over a copy. The ministry side also argued the petition should be dismissed, saying that in substance it claims the law is unconstitutional, a claim that can be pursued through a constitutional complaint. [ 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]

The Korean Bar Association said in a written opinion that the need for secrecy shrinks sharply once a warrant is shown. Professor Choi Ho-jin (최호진) of Dankook University, appearing as an expert, said a witness learns the warrant's contents when it is shown and that investigative effectiveness cannot be a decisive ground for withholding a copy. Newsis reported that he would propose letting a judge delay delivery of a copy. [ 1 , 2 , 7 , 11 ]

Justices questioned both sides. Justice Kim Hyung-doo asked Kim whether he could understand the warrant when it was shown, and Justice Jung Hyung-sik asked why he had not filed a constitutional complaint. Chief Justice Kim Sang-hwan opened by saying the main issue is whether treating suspects and non-suspects differently violates fundamental rights. Chosun Ilbo reported that the court will set a later date for its decision, and Newsis reported that a hearing in the Green Cross case is scheduled for 23 October. [ 2 , 6 , 7 , 11 ]