Human Rights Commission: "Police Investigation Rules Must Be Amended to Comply with Criminal Procedure Act"

"Judicial Police Corporals Should Not Prepare Interrogation Reports Independently"

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea has issued a recommendation to amend the Police Investigation Rules, which currently allow judicial police corporals to independently prepare suspect interrogation reports, so that they align with the Criminal Procedure Act.

Seoul Seodaemun-gu Police Agency. Yonhap News Agency

On August 21, the Commission announced that it had recommended to the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency that Article 39 of the Police Investigation Rules be revised to reflect the intent of Articles 197 and the latter part of Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that these revisions be observed in actual investigations.

According to Article 197 of the current Criminal Procedure Act, police officials with the rank of inspector or higher are designated as judicial police officers and are authorized to conduct criminal investigations, while sub-inspector, sergeant, and police constable ranks are considered judicial police corporals and are meant to assist in such investigations. In contrast, Article 39 of the Police Investigation Rules broadly designates all of these “judicial police officials” as competent to conduct and draft suspect interrogation reports. The Commission determined that this rule is inconsistent with the intent of the Criminal Procedure Act, which clearly distinguishes the investigative authority between judicial police officers and judicial police corporals.

This case originated when a petitioner filed a complaint with the Commission in October 2025. The individual claimed to have felt insulted after overhearing, while being interrogated in an open police station interview room, a police officer in the same space speaking to what appeared to be a team leader about the petitioner’s suspected criminal charges. The complaint also cited concerns that confidential investigation details could be leaked to outsiders. The police explained that although the interview room had an open structure, it was not accessible to the general public at will.

The Commission found that while the layout of the interview room may have been somewhat inconvenient, there were no outsiders present at the time, and the petitioner was using a mobile phone. Therefore, it determined that personal information had not been leaked externally. The Commission also concluded that the officer’s remarks were unlikely to have objectively caused the petitioner to feel insulted and dismissed the complaint. However, during the course of its investigation, the Commission confirmed that a judicial police corporal had in fact conducted the interrogation and prepared the report independently, effectively exercising authority reserved for judicial police officers. The Commission considered this to be an investigation in violation of due process.

Previously, in its decision in April 2024, the Commission had already stated a similar opinion regarding the independent preparation of suspect interrogation reports by judicial police corporals.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.