Act on Attachment of Electronic Devices violation
The client had come out of prison under an electronic monitoring order, with conditions banning drinking and going out between 10pm and 5am. Police said those conditions had been broken four times and applied for a warrant to detain the client. The breaches were admitted, and detention during the investigation was in prospect.
Electronic tagCurfew breachDrinking banDetention hearing
Detention warrant denied (구속영장 기각)Criminal
This image is for illustrative purposes and is not a photo of an actual case.
Substantive review of detention warrant
Investigative agencies generally conduct investigations without detention, but they may apply to the court for a pre-trial detention warrant if the suspect is reasonably suspected and has no fixed residence, or there is a risk of destroying evidence or fleeing.
The court, upon receiving the detention warrant application, summons and interrogates the suspect, and decides whether to issue the warrant by comprehensively considering whether the aforementioned grounds for detention exist, as well as the gravity of the crime, the risk of recidivism, and the concern of harm to the victim or important witnesses.
If the warrant is issued, the suspect is immediately detained, and the police can conduct a detention investigation for up to 10 days, and the prosecution for up to 20 days.
Recently, there was a case where lawyer Joo Youngjae defended a suspect against whom a pre-trial detention warrant was requested for alleged violation of the Act on Electronic Device Attachment (Act on the Electronic Device Attachment for Tracking Location of Specific Criminal Offenders, etc.), and led to the rejection of the warrant application. I will introduce this case.
Facts
The client (the suspect) was sentenced in June 2019 to 2 years in prison for indecent assault by compulsion and a 3-year order to attach a location tracking electronic device. After serving time in prison, the client was released on April 14, 2021, and was wearing the location tracking electronic device.
During the period of wearing the device, the client was subject to compliance requirements including a ban on drinking alcohol and a curfew from 22:00 to 05:00 the next day. The police applied for a pre-trial detention warrant on the grounds that the client violated these requirements four times.
Assistance of lawyer Joo Youngjae
Although the client admitted to all charges, lawyer Joo Youngjae argued that there was no need for detention, pointing out that the client returned home only slightly past the curfew, faithfully responded to alcohol breath tests and vowed to comply with the requirements in the future, was receiving treatment for alcohol dependence, the violations did not lead to other crimes, and there was no risk of flight.
Court decision
The court accepted lawyer Joo Youngjae's arguments and rejected the police's warrant application. The client was immediately released and the investigation continued without detention.
Before you read
The results shown here depend on the facts and evidence of each case and the laws in force at the time. Every case is different, so the outcome of one case does not predict or guarantee the outcome of another. This page is not legal advice. For your own case, please confirm through a consultation.
If your situation is similar, ask by phone.
I will listen to your situation and tell you what to do first. Consultations are available in Korean and English.