Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes Act (retaliatory assault)

Substantive review of detention warrant

Investigative agencies generally conduct investigations without detention, but if the suspect's suspicion is substantial, the suspect has no fixed residence, there is concern of evidence destruction, or there is concern of flight, they may request a detention warrant from the court.

The court that receives the detention warrant request summons the suspect for questioning and decides whether to issue the warrant by comprehensively considering whether the grounds for detention listed above exist, as well as the gravity of the crime, the risk of recidivism, and the risk of harm to the victim and important witnesses.

If the warrant is issued, the suspect is immediately detained, and the police may conduct the investigation while detained for up to 10 days, and the prosecution for up to 20 days.

Recently, attorney Joo Youngjae represented a suspect for whom a detention warrant was requested on charges of violating the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (retaliatory violence, etc.) and brought about the dismissal of the request. We will introduce this case.

Facts

Around March 2021, the client (suspect) visited a bar operated by the victim and, after drinking, requested credit, and when the victim refused, the suspect assaulted the victim.

Later, around May 2021, the suspect, feeling vengeful because the victim had reported the above case to the police and undergone investigation, visited the bar again while intoxicated, said, "You reported me, right? I'll kill you with a sashimi knife, you human garbage," and pushed the victim down the stairs, committing retaliatory violence, and was arrested as a flagrant offender. The police requested a detention warrant, citing substantial suspicion, concern of flight, and high possibility of evidence destruction.

Attorney Joo Youngjae's assistance

Attorney Joo Youngjae argued for dismissal of the warrant, stating that although the suspect admitted to arguing with the victim while drunk, the suspect had no memory of assault, so the suspicion was not sufficiently substantiated; the suspect had lived at the current residence for four years, so the residence was clear; the suspect had a job, so the possibility of flight was low; and there had been no criminal record since 2014, so the risk of recidivism was not high.

Court's decision

The court accepted the arguments of attorney Joo Youngjae, dismissed the police's warrant request, and the client was immediately released and investigated without detention.