[1] Whether Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the notification of the reason for detention applies mutatis mutandis to the case of arrest by issuing a writ of execution of punishment for the execution of detention at a work site following a fine (negative)

[2] In a case where a judicial police officer arrests a person subject to a fine for the execution of detention in a workhouse, whether the prosecutor shall present a warrant of execution of punishment issued by the public prosecutor to the other party (affirmative), and the meaning of "when urgent arrest is required" that can be made without presenting a warrant of execution of punishment

[1] The provisions on the execution of a sentence of imprisonment shall apply mutatis mutandis to the detention in a prison as it is practically the same as the punishment of a person (Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act). A prosecutor, who is an execution agency of a sentence, may summon the party concerned for the execution of the sentence, and if the party concerned fails to comply with the summons, he/she may issue a warrant of execution of the punishment (Article 473 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Article 475 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the provisions on the detention of the defendant as stipulated in Chapter 9 of Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the execution of a warrant of execution of execution of punishment shall apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of a warrant of execution of punishment, and in this case, the term " regulations on the detention of the defendant" means " regulations on the execution of a warrant of detention of the defendant." Thus, Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the execution of a warrant

[2] If a judicial police officer intends to arrest a person subject to a fine for the execution of detention in a workhouse, he/she shall present a writ of execution issued by the prosecutor to the other party (see Article 85(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, if urgency is required due to failure to possess a writ of execution, the other party may be notified that the reason for punishment execution and the warrant of execution have been issued if urgency is required (see Article 85(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act). In addition, “when urgent urgency is required” which can be compelled without presenting a writ of execution refers to cases where a police officer assists the other party to the execution of punishment without sufficient time to possess a duly issued warrant of execution.

[1] Articles 70, 72, 473, 475, and 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 85(1) and (3), 473, 475, and 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8591 Decided October 14, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 2132)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeong-sung

Gwangju District Court Decision 2011No2946 Decided February 1, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies mutatis mutandis to detention in a workhouse in accordance with a fine, as it is practically the same as the type of imprisonment and the provisions on the execution of a punishment is applicable mutatis mutandis (Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act). A public prosecutor, who is an executive agency of a punishment, may summon the parties for the execution of the punishment, and if the parties fail to comply with the summons, he/she may issue a warrant of execution of punishment (Article 473 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Article 475 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the provisions on detention of the accused as stipulated in Chapter 9 of Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the execution of a warrant of execution of punishment shall apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of a warrant of execution of punishment in this case. Here, “the provisions on detention of the accused” in this context refers to “the provisions on the execution of a warrant of detention of the accused.” As such, Article

Meanwhile, if a judicial police officer intends to arrest a person subject to a fine for the execution of detention in a workhouse, he/she shall present a writ of execution issued by a public prosecutor to the other party (see Article 85(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, in cases where a person fails to possess a writ of execution, if urgency is required, the reason for the execution of punishment and the warrant of execution may be issued to the other party (see Article 85(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act). In addition, the term “when urgency is required” that can be arrested without presenting a writ of execution refers to cases where a judicial police officer assists the other party in the execution of punishment without sufficient time to possess a duly issued warrant of execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8591, Oct. 14, 2010).

According to the evidence duly adopted, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the police officer was working temporarily on the road in order to arrest other designated recipients and crews at night; (b) the borrower was aware that he was a fine unpaid; (c) the police officer was working on the road while tracking the defendant while driving the above vehicle; and (d) at the time when the police officer asked the defendant to present his identification card, and issued a warrant of execution of a fine; and (c) the police officer asked the defendant to pay the fine for the time; (d) the police officer did not pay the fine even if the police officer allowed the defendant to contact with his family; (c) the police officer did not pay the fine even if the police officer want to go to the police station by moving the defendant to the police station; (d) the police officer tried not to leave the police vehicle, and the police officer tried to do so, and thus, (d) the police officer did not arrest the police officer on the road, and thus, found the defendant guilty of the obstruction of the performance of his official duties and the execution of the warrant of execution of the warrant of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal provisions and legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legality of execution of warrant of execution of punishment for the purpose of attracting a fine unpaid person or self-defense

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)