National Human Rights Commission of Korea Annual Report 2020 ■ ‌Unjustified confiscation of personal effects and violation of the right to counsel by police officer The Commission concluded that confiscating a suspect’s personal effects without a clear consent from the suspect is a violation of lawful procedures, and that not allowing the suspect sufficient time to appoint a lawyer despite the fact that the suspect had asked to appoint a lawyer is an infringement upon the right to get legal aid. Thus, on June 22, it recommended the Chief of the National Police Agency to conduct staff training regarding the voluntary presentation of evidence, develop procedures for verifying a person’s intent to present evidence on a voluntary basis, and refine the relevant regulations so that suspects are properly enabled to get legal aid should it be their intent to do so prior to an investigation. An investigation by the Commission showed that, prior to the 2nd investigation session, the petitionee made copies of the petitioner’s bank transaction receipts and memos in the petitioner’s immediate possession without obtaining a clear consent from the latter, and attached them to the case file; though the petitioner had asked to get investigated in the presence of a court-appointed lawyer, the petitionee told the petitioner that a suspect is not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer and went ahead with the investigation, and the petitioner refused to testify afterwards. According to a Supreme Court precedent (2013do11233 ruled on March 10, 2016), should a dispute arise on lawfulness of certain investigative procedures, the investigative agency must prove the lawfulness of the procedures beyond any reasonable doubt. In this case, the petitionee should have demonstrated that he was given the petitioner’s personal effects based on a clear consent of the latter, but he failed to present an objective proof to support that claim, so the Commission concluded that there was a violation of lawful procedures. Also, a person’s right to appoint a lawyer must be guaranteed in order to ensure his/her right to counsel. In this case, however, despite the fact that the petitioner had told the petitionee that he wanted to appoint a lawyer before being investigated, the petitionee failed to give the petitioner enough time and room to appoint a lawyer. Thus, the Commission concluded that the petitionee violated the petitioner’s right to counsel, which led to the recommendations stated above. 90