▲ An information notice regarding constitutional complaints is displayed at the civil petition office of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on March 25.
The Constitutional Court will hold a hearing next month on a constitutional complaint arguing that a court decision refusing to grant a search warrant copy on the grounds that the subject is not a suspect is unconstitutional.
This marks the second scheduled hearing for a constitutional complaint, following the upcoming hearing for the "first constitutional complaint" case next month.
The Constitutional Court announced today (the 7th) that it will hold a hearing date at 3:00 p.m. on the 21st of next month in the main courtroom for a trial cancellation case regarding the "non-provision of search warrant copies to non-suspects subject to search," filed by attorney Kim Young-soo.
Attorney Kim Young-soo filed a constitutional complaint seeking to cancel the Supreme Court's decision regarding the execution of a search warrant by the independent counsel team led by Ahn Mi-young, which investigated the death of the late Sergeant Lee Ye-ram.
Kim filed a quasi-appeal with the court, stating that independent counsel Ahn Mi-young's team executed a search warrant against him in July 2022 while he held the status of a witness without providing a copy of the warrant, and that the requirements for a search warrant were not met.
However, following the Seoul Central District Court, the Supreme Court also dismissed the case in February of this year, interpreting that "witnesses like attorney Kim do not have the right to receive copies of search warrants."
Article 118 of the current Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that "if the person subject to a search warrant disposition is a defendant, a copy shall be provided," and Article 219 applies Article 118 mutatis mutandis to search warrants at the investigative stage.
The court judged that since the target for warrant copy provision under Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act corresponds to a "defendant" excluding third parties, interpreting the mutatis mutandis provision at the investigative stage should also be limited only to "suspects" excluding witnesses.
In response, Kim filed a constitutional complaint arguing that failing to recognize the right to receive warrant copies under the Criminal Procedure Act for "witnesses" constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.
This case passed the preliminary review by the designated panel on May 12 and was referred to the full bench for full deliberation.
It is the "third constitutional complaint" case to pass the preliminary review following the implementation of the constitutional complaint system in March of this year.
The hearing for the "second constitutional complaint" case concerning a housing redevelopment project association, which passed the preliminary review together, has not yet been scheduled.
The Constitutional Court plans to hold a hearing on October 7 for the "first constitutional complaint" case regarding Green Cross's surcharge case for vaccine bidding collusion.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.