beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On July 19, 2014, the Defendant rejected the charge, even though he received 112 reports from the 102-dong C apartment 102-dong 102 and 2-ro, the same day and received a request from the reporter to inform him of personal information from the E during the region belonging to the Gangseo-si Police Station D District, which heard the case from the reporter.
Accordingly, the Defendant requested the vehicle E to voluntarily act in the above D zone, and the Defendant himself, “this sponse, sponse, sponse, sponse, sponse, sponse, sponse, sponse, sponse E’s chest and sponse E’s chest and sponse his clothes, thereby hindering the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine (1) Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act specifies the principle of voluntary investigation.
The act of accompanying a suspect to an investigative agency, etc. in the form of obtaining consent from an investigator in the course of an investigation does not have any means to restrain the physical freedom of the suspect even though it is substantially similar to the arrest and detention, so it is not systematic and practical to guarantee the voluntariness as well as institutionally. Moreover, there is a high possibility that the Constitutional Act and the Criminal Procedure Act do not provide various rights guarantee devices to the suspect who is arrested or detained on the ground that it is prior to the regular stage of arrest and detention.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the legality of the accompanying is recognized only in cases where it is proved by objective circumstances that the investigator was carried out by the voluntary will of the suspect solely, such as where the investigator knew that he/she could refuse the accompanying to the suspect prior to the accompanying, or where the suspect, who was aware of or was accompanied, could freely leave the accompanying site or could leave the accompanying site at any time, etc.
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 13. 9.