The right to counsel is regarded as a basic right not only for a suspect under custody but also for a non-arrested suspect as well. It is a constitutional right founded in Section 1 and 4 of Article 12, and Article 27 of Constitution. The right to counsel includes the right entitled to have the presence of counsel during interrogation by law-enforcement. The Criminal Procedure Law revises to guarantee all suspects have rights to counsel during interrogation. The right to counsel is a constitutional right which is materialized at a subordinate criminal procedural law. Therefore, it shall be differentiated from other statutory rights not directly derived from Constitution. According to the Criminal Procedure Law, the right to counsel during interrogation can be exercised by both suspects and counsels. However, such a right entitled to a counsel is not a constitutional right, which shows distinctive difference from a suspect-originated right to counsel.

[대상판례 1] 대법원 2003. 11. 11. 자 2003모402 결정
 [대상판례 2] 헌법재판소 2004. 9. 23. 선고 2000헌마138 결정
  [다수의견 요지]
  [별개의견 요지]
  [재판관 김영일의 반대의견 요지]
  [재판관 송인준, 주선회의 반대의견 요지]
 〔연 구〕
  Ⅰ. 머 리 말
  Ⅱ. 구속 피의자의 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리의 근거
  Ⅲ. 불구속 피의자의 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리의 근거
  Ⅳ. 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리의 법적 성격
  Ⅴ. 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리의 내용
  Ⅵ. 변호인의 피의자신문 참여권의 행사, 제한 및 한계
  Ⅶ. 피의자신문시 변호인참여권에 대한 침해의 효과 및 구제방법
  Ⅷ. 피의자신문 참여권이 변호인 자신의 헌법상 권리인지 여부
  Ⅸ. 맺 음 말
  [참고문헌]
  [Abstract]

• 김대웅(부장판사, 사법연수원 교수) | Kim, Dae-Woong