‘Investigation and trial without detention’ is an explicit principle that criminal procedure law regulates, and suspects can only be detained when grounds for detention under the law exist. However, it is improper to maintain to apply current grounds for detention considering continuous circumstances, in which suspects, who were released for the reason there are no grounds for detention, inflict social hazards such as harming the victims.
 For the circumstance that the suspect has a steady residence and when there is no worry about the suspect destroying evidence or running away but there is a high possibility that the suspect harms the victim again or creates another victim by doing another crime, it is known that the Supreme Court is considering ‘expansion of grounds for detention’ and ‘adopt of conditional release’ to deal with the suspect’s whereabouts.
 Although the consideration of the Supreme Court has already been in practice and academia for a long time, claiming two different policies was indeed from two different perspectives. The ‘expansion of grounds for detention’ has been claimed from the perspective that highlights the necessity of investigation under detention, however the ‘adoption of conditional release’ has been insisted from the view that emphasizes the thorough realization of the principle of 'investigation without detention'. However, the ‘expansion of grounds for preventive detention’ and ‘conditional release’ are by no means separate directions on parallel lines, but when operated in harmony together, desirable detention standards can be established and the problems currently faced can be resolved. This thesis demonstrated the way to harmoniously operate both policies.
 The suspects need ‘grounds for detention’ to gain conditional release as ‘Conditional release’ does have a characteristic of probation of detention. Therefore, to prevent social hazards by conditionally releasing the suspects who can harm the victim or have a high danger of recidivism, it is needed to expand ‘grounds for detention’ so that ‘the possibility of harm to the victim’, ‘the danger of recidivism’ and others can be acknowledged to be ‘grounds for detention.' The major purposes of detention basically are the progress of the criminal procedure and securing the execution of punishment, though, preventive detention should be recognized to be another important purpose of detention, as it prevents a suspect suspected of a crime with highly probable evidence from freely acting so that he or she cannot cause another crime or harm the victim again and therefore keeps the security of individual citizens and society. Leading countries such as the U.S., Germany, France, and many others broadly accept grounds for detention including preventive detention while they also operate a system similar to conditional release.
 On the other hand, specific standards are required to prevent arbitrary abuse of the judge’s discretion in selection between executing an arrest warrant or conditional release. The standards need to be established in three concrete ways. Firstly, as sentencing factors do, ways that considering factors for grounds for detention can be reflected objectively and practically should be devised, and specific standards such as reasons for the prohibition of conditional release or those considering factors should be regulated on related laws such as criminal procedure law. Secondly, a judge in charge of a warrant should notify the suspect and the prosecutor with a document that includes detailed reasons for the decision of the suspect’s detention. Lastly, direct means of objection, such as a warrant appeal system need to be introduced.
Read full abstract
May 9, 2024
Bartłomiej Kamiński 
Open Access