South Korea's Constitutional Court will hold a public hearing next month in a trial-annulment case arising from a search conducted by the special counsel team investigating the death of Air Force Staff Sergeant Lee Ye-ram. It is the second such case to go to a public hearing, after the first involved a fine imposed on GC Biopharma over vaccine bid rigging, meaning two trial-annulment cases will be argued publicly next month alone.
The Constitutional Court said on the 7th that it will hold a public hearing at 3 p.m. on the 21st of next month in its main courtroom in a trial-annulment case filed by a lawyer surnamed Kim against a Supreme Court ruling. It is the second trial-annulment case scheduled for a public hearing, following the GC Biopharma vaccine bid-rigging fine case. The court said on the 1st of this month that it would hold a public hearing in the GC Biopharma case on the 7th of next month.
Constitutional appeals are usually decided on the basis of written submissions rather than public hearings. The court does open hearings, however, when it concludes after deliberation that expert testimony or additional input is needed.
At issue is whether a copy of a search warrant must also be given to a witness. In 2022, the special counsel investigating the death of Sergeant Lee searched Kim's home and office while Kim was classified as a witness. Kim filed a quasi-appeal with the court, arguing that the special counsel had failed to provide a copy of the warrant and that the requirements for a search had not been met.
The Seoul Central District Court partially granted Kim's quasi-appeal in May 2023. It ruled, however, that a witness such as Kim has no right to receive a copy of a search warrant. Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that a copy of a warrant be given when the person subject to the search and seizure is a defendant. Kim filed a further appeal, but the Supreme Court dismissed it in February this year, finding no legal error in the lower court's judgment.
In April, Kim filed a constitutional appeal seeking annulment of the Supreme Court's ruling, arguing that the courts had "interpreted and applied Articles 118 and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act in an unconstitutional manner, infringing the petitioner's right to equality, the privacy and freedom of private life, and the right to trial."
