The Supreme Court has ruled that police acted unlawfully when they arrested a suspect on the spot after he voluntarily appeared at a police station at an agreed-upon time in response to a summons. However, the top court said the illegality of the arrest process did not affect the outcome of the judgment and upheld the guilty verdict on charges of arranging prostitution.
According to legal sources on Wednesday, the Supreme Court's First Division (presiding Justice Ma Yong-joo) recently upheld a lower court ruling that sentenced a man identified as A to one year and six months in prison, a fine of 10 million won ($7,300), and a forfeiture of 17.6 million won on charges of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts.
A was indicted on charges of renting an officetel in Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi Province, between August 2020 and January 2021, hiring female workers, placing advertisements, and arranging prostitution for male customers.
The arrest warrant for A was requested by a prosecutor at the Uijeongbu District Prosecutors' Office on January 22, 2022, upon application by a police officer from the Gyeonggi Northern Provincial Police Agency, and was issued three days later on January 25 by the Uijeongbu District Court. Police conducted a search and seizure of the building A had rented on February 4 and subsequently requested his appearance multiple times. A responded with answers such as "I am in a provincial area and find it difficult to appear" and "I will appear after consulting with my attorney," before agreeing to voluntarily appear at the police agency on February 19. A arrived in front of the Gyeonggi Northern Provincial Police Agency at the agreed time, but officers who had been lying in wait executed the arrest warrant against him.
The first-instance court ruled that the police execution of the arrest warrant was lawful and found A guilty.
While A admitted to the offense in the first trial, he reversed his position in the appellate trial, claiming, "I was unable to secure women for prostitution, so I never actually arranged any." He argued that he was unlawfully arrested without being informed of his right to remain silent despite voluntarily appearing in response to the police summons, and that he confessed during the investigation under threats and coercion. He therefore claimed that the evidence collected constituted illegally obtained evidence.
The appellate court rejected all of these arguments. It ruled, "A had a prior record of punishment for arranging prostitution and was serving a suspended sentence for another crime," adding, "Since it appears that he could obstruct the progress of the investigation in the long term by not responding to summons, the police arrest was lawful." Based on police investigation reports and investigators' testimony, the court also acknowledged that A had been informed of his right to remain silent.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, saying that guilt was established based on the remaining evidence even excluding statements obtained through the unlawful arrest. However, the top court accepted A's claim of "unlawful arrest." It ruled that it could not be concluded that A had refused to respond to the summons without justifiable reason, and that since he had arrived at the police agency at the agreed time, there were no words or actions suggesting concerns about destruction of evidence or flight. The court also cited the fact that the report written by police after the arrest contained no explanation or description of the reasons for executing the arrest warrant or the grounds for determining that there were "concerns about destruction of evidence and flight."
"A appears to have been informed of the gist of the criminal facts, the right to counsel, and the right to remain silent during and immediately after the arrest," the Supreme Court said. "Ultimately, the police's determination that the grounds and necessity for arresting the defendant were met is, by any measure, a case that significantly lacks rationality in light of the rules of experience." The court added, "The suspect interrogation protocol and written statements prepared during the state of unlawful arrest cannot be used as evidence of guilt, but the remaining evidence alone poses no obstacle to recognizing the criminal facts as guilty."
