The right to remain silent is used question by question

In TV dramas, remaining silent usually means saying nothing at all to the very end. Perhaps that is why people feel that using the right to refuse to make statements means confronting the investigator, or they walk into the interview room without even thinking of it. In actual questioning, the right is used far more precisely than that.

The law has spoken of ‘individual questions’ from the start

Before questioning, the investigator must inform you that you may refuse to make any statement or decline to answer individual questions, that you will suffer no disadvantage for not making a statement, and that what you say may be used as evidence of guilt in court (Article 244-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). It is not all or nothing; you can choose question by question.

After informing you of this, the investigator must ask whether you will exercise the right to refuse to make statements (진술거부권) and the right to the assistance of counsel, and record your answer in the interrogation record (paragraph (2) of the same Article). This exchange on the first page of the record looks like a formality, but it is the record showing whether you were properly informed of your rights.

So it is possible to explain your personal details and how the events unfolded while declining to answer only certain points. Conversely, you can also refuse to answer most questions and state only the facts that are truly necessary. Which approach is better differs from case to case.

Which questions to stop at

In consultations, the situations where we consider refusing to answer are usually these: questions asking you to pin down specific dates or amounts when you have no idea what material the investigators hold, questions about the roles of others involved, and questions asking you to answer even by guessing when your memory is vague. A hasty answer to such questions looks like a changed story later when it conflicts with objective evidence.

When you decline, it is enough to say briefly, ‘I will not answer that part now.’ There is no need to explain your reasons at length or argue with the investigator. For the points where you held back, the option remains to explain them in a written opinion after checking the record and gathering materials.

Things are different in a case where you admit the charge and ask for leniency. Admitting your wrongdoing and explaining honestly how it happened is itself something that is considered in the disposition and sentencing, so refusing to answer often does not help.

Silence is recorded too

If you refuse to answer, the record states exactly that you declined to make a statement. That you will suffer no disadvantage is the law's promise, but in a case with enough other evidence, silence alone will not change the outcome. The right is better used not as a way to cover up a case but as a way to avoid leaving unprepared answers in the record.

Having refused once does not mean you can never speak afterwards. You may give a statement at the next questioning after checking the record. But an explanation given then is only convincing if it is supported by materials that existed from the beginning.

Which questions to stop at should be decided before questioning. If you choose on the spot in the interview room, speech and silence get mixed together and the record ends up looking awkward instead.