Specific degree of "goods to be seized and the place of seizure" to be stated in a warrant of search and seizure;

The principle of warrant under Article 12 of the Constitution is the main purpose of judicial control over the exercise of arbitrary compulsory disposition by an investigation agency. It is recognized to prevent the abuse of authority by an execution agency and to ensure the safety of the people's body and residence. Article 114 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that the articles to be seized and the place to be searched should be indicated in the search and seizure warrant is to prevent the harm of the general warrant. Therefore, the search and seizure warrant should specify the articles to be seized individually and the place to be searched individually.

Article 12 of the Constitution, Article 114 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Applicant

Stickway

The petition for adjudication of this case is dismissed.

1. Details of the instant case

On August 28, 1991, the applicant filed a complaint with the Youngdo Police Station on the ground of assault from the misstatements outside of the application, and on September 29 of the same year, the applicant received the petition that the applicant took place with the above complainants the property amount of KRW 1 stock company, which was the joint representative director, and that the applicant taken place with embezzlement. On November 14, 1991, the suspect, who was the criminal leader of the Youngdo Police Station, was issued a search and seizure warrant (hereinafter the first warrant of this case) stating the following from the court on November 14, 1991.

Suspect: Applicant for the representative director of the non-applicant 1 Stock Company ( Address: Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seosan-si (hereinafter address omitted)

Articles to be seized: Loans, discount of bills, interest payment, accounting books, securities issued by relevant financial institutions, etc.;

Places to be searched: Gyeongnam Bank Busan Branch (50-7, Busan Central District Office 50-7, Busan Central District Office 50-7), Dara Investment Finance Co., Ltd. (18, Busan Metropolitan City 830-18, Dong-dong, Dong-si), 1 Co., Ltd. (3 Do-dong, Dong-si, Dong-si, Dong-si), 3 dong-si, Applicant's office, housing, and personal data (where the address is not specified),

Term of validity: by November 30 of the same year;

At around 10:00 on November 30, 1991, the suspect ordered 7 employees from the criminal department office of the Youngdo Police Station to search and seize the non-applicant and 2 stock companies. From 10:40 on the same day, the police officer, who was ordered by the suspect, was appointed from 10:6 to the above non-applicant 2 corporation, and conducted the search by presenting the above warrant. The non-applicant 3 (son of the applicant) and three employees, who were the representative director of the non-applicant 2 corporation, were the above police officers, were not the office of the applicant, and the office of the non-applicant 2 corporation was the office of the non-applicant 3, and the search by the above warrant was refused on the ground that the search by the police officers was illegal. At around 12:00, the applicant also requested the removal of the police officers from the above office.

Accordingly, the above police officers suspended the execution of the warrant and reported the above facts to the suspect. In order to resolve disputes over the validity of the above search and seizure warrant, the suspect again requested a new warrant to the court at around 16:00 and issued a new warrant at around 17:30 (the second warrant of this case).

As a result of the investigation of the case, the suspect was aware of the fact that the applicant committed a special breach of trust under the Commercial Act, and completed the investigation of the case, and sent it to the prosecution on February 21, 1992. According to the indictment that the Busan District Prosecutors' Office filed with the Busan District Court on March 10, 1992, the applicant was indicted on the facts that the applicant obtained funds from the financial institutions such as banks and investment financial companies in the name of the above non-applicant 1 corporation from October 1991 to 198, and used them as useful, and the facts that the applicant used the funds from the financial institutions such as the above non-applicant 1 corporation and the investment financial companies on January 14, 1991 at the prosecutor's office of the Busan District Prosecutor's Office of Busan District Court on January 14,

2. Summary of the instant accusation

On December 2, 191, 191, the applicant filed an accusation against the police officer's act during the process of executing the above search and seizure warrant, against the applicant who directed him.

(6) On November 30, 191, the suspect, who works as the head of the above criminal police station, shall be informed of the fact that he/she had the above fact that he/she had been engaged in the above investigation by not later than 191.40, and the above fact that he/she would not have been engaged in the above investigation by not later than 20,000 Busan Central District Court offices (the above fact that he/she would not have been engaged in the above investigation by not later than 10,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00).

3. Appropriateness of the request for adjudication of this case

The facts of the above applicant’s accusation against the suspect are clear that the prosecutor’s disposition of non-prosecution is issued and that it is served on the applicant. The applicant is so-called the suspect’s instructions, and the prosecutor’s disposition of non-prosecution against the above accusation is unlawful. Thus, the applicant has reached an application for adjudication of the instant case.

A. First, we examine the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, preparation of false public documents, interference with business, intimidation, dwelling search, publication of suspected facts, etc.

Since it is apparent that the above crime does not correspond to each crime stipulated in Articles 123 through 125 of the Criminal Act, which is the object of an application for adjudication under the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the application for adjudication of this case by the applicant is in violation of the legal method, and it is without merit.

B. We examine the interference with the exercise of another person's right under Article 123 of the Criminal Code, the crime of illegal arrest and confinement under Article 124 of the same Act, and the crime of violence and suspicion under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant, as seen earlier in the public allegation of the facts of accusation, abused his authority to interfere with another person’s exercise of rights, and illegally detained the Defendant for 20 minutes and 20 minutes and 20 minutes of the application, including Nonparty 3, Kim Jong-tae, Nogyeong, Kim Jong-ok, and Park Jong-sik, and the applicant abused his authority and abused his authority to assault and harshly treat the applicant, etc.

According to the Criminal Procedure Act, the warrant shall be kept confidential and shall not prejudice the reputation of the person who is subject to the disposition (Article 116 of the same Act). However, during the execution of the warrant of search and seizure, the person who violates the prohibition may leave the place or attach a guard until the execution of the warrant is completed (Article 119 of the same Act). In the execution of the warrant, the person who has violated the prohibition may either be removed or opened and take other necessary measures (Article 120 of the same Act). Thus, in the lawful execution of the warrant, the exercise of force necessary to eliminate the situation where the execution of the warrant is hindered due to its nature, which is a compulsory disposition, shall not be deemed unlawful as a legitimate act of business. Therefore, first, it is examined whether the search of the so-called office is legitimate.

The principle of warrant under Article 12 of the Constitution is mainly aimed at judicial control over the exercise of arbitrary compulsory disposition by an investigation agency, and it is recognized to prevent the abuse of authority by an execution agency and to ensure the stability of people's body and residence. Article 114 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates the articles to be seized and the place to be searched in a search and seizure warrant to prevent the harm of the so-called general warrant. Thus, the search and seizure warrant should indicate the articles to be seized individually and individually and specify the place to be searched within the region.

As the first search warrant of this case was acknowledged in the health room as above, the place to be searched in the above warrant is only indicated as the "office of the applicant" without any regional indication by lot number. Thus, the search place as seen above cannot be deemed a legitimate execution of official duties because it cannot be said that the search of the non-applicant 2 corporation by the above warrant in violation of a specific nature request was conducted (the record reveals that the non-applicant 2 corporation held 7,000 shares as the large shareholder and was the representative director of the above company until November 20, 191, and the non-applicant 3 was the representative director of the above company from the day when the above warrant was executed, and the outer wall of the above non-applicant 2 corporation was attached to the defendant's office at the time of execution of warrant, and the conclusion that the non-applicant 2 corporation was not a large photograph within the office, but did not change if the police officer exercised the above warrant.)

Furthermore, according to the legal action of the suspect, the first search and seizure warrant, which was issued at the time, was stipulated to be search and seizure to the applicant office. However, according to the true contents of the above sentence, it included the contents that the rent, etc. for the store lease contract, etc. leased by the non-applicant No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 1 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 1 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 at the time of the investigation of the above case's petition, the representative director of the non-applicant No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 1, at the time of the above investigation, the warrant was executed with the knowledge that it was legitimate, and the police officer No. 14 Company No. 3 Company No. 2 Company No. 2 Company No. 14 Company No. 2 Company No. 14 Company No. 3 Company No.

According to the records of this case, the police officers, who received the suspect's order and received the first warrant, stated that the non-applicant non-applicant company 2, was able to respond to the execution of the warrant, but did not comply with it. Thus, the defendant was forced to contact the suspect and execute the warrant of this case after obtaining a legitimate warrant from the court. (The applicant also stated that the non-applicant 2, the representative director of the corporation non-applicant 2, and the non-applicant 3, indicated the non-applicant 3, the non-applicant 3, was illegal. However, if the search place was specified in the search place and the search was conducted at that place, the above reasons alleged by the applicant cannot be deemed illegal search). However, the fact that there were some expressions and arguments in the process of trying the first warrant of this case is not acknowledged, as alleged by the applicant.

Therefore, the prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition of this case against the suspect is just and the applicant's petition for adjudication against the name of the crime is not reasonable. Thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 262 (1) 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

For the above reasons, all of the applicant's application for adjudication of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)