The case holding that the State is liable to compensate for the failure of investigators to notify the summary of the crime, reasons for detention, and the fact that they may receive counsel assistance after the urgent detention and execute an ordinary detention warrant other than the ex post facto detention warrant.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Articles 206 and 207 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Kim Jong-type

Korea

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 with five percent per annum from July 8, 1991 to October 15, 1992, and twenty percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Five minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,00,000 won with 5% per annum from July 8, 1991 to the sentencing day of this sentence, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 2-5, 10, 14, 15, and 3-4 of Gap evidence 2-5, and Gap evidence 3-4 and the testimony of witness handbook, the plaintiff was working as the 5th chairman of the National Council of University Students (a sub-lease) in 1991. The plaintiff, around 05:0 of July 8, 1991, was arrested by seven sub-affiliated investigators belonging to the Seoul Dongjak-gu Seoul Dongjak-gu Office 4, 181-381, 202, and was detained in the National Security Planning Department. On July 9, 191, the non-party Kim Young-dong, a judicial police officer belonging to the National Security Planning Department, applied for a detention warrant to the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office as a violation of the National Security Act, and was arrested by the plaintiff's defense counsel at the request of the public prosecutor or the defendant's defense counsel for the same year of arrest of the plaintiff on the same date.

2. The fact that the investigator of the National Security Planning Department detained the plaintiff on July 8, 191 without a warrant constitutes an urgent detention under Article 206 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the above investigators should obtain and execute an ex post facto detention warrant against the plaintiff, despite the fact that they should be executed, and the plaintiff was detained without a detention warrant for 2 days from the time of the actual urgent detention until the execution of the warrant (as stated in subparagraph 3-6 and 7 of the above evidence, according to each of the records, it can be recognized that the plaintiff was issued with a detention warrant for violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on June 4, 191. However, in this case where there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above warrant was issued and executed when the plaintiff is arrested, the conclusion cannot be different solely on the ground that the above detention warrant was issued and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was issued and executed.) Even if the plaintiff is urgently detained, the defendant cannot be held liable to inform the plaintiff of the reasons and the summary of the crime against the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant should not have suffered mental suffering.

Furthermore, considering all the circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the health team, the reasons why the Plaintiff caused the emergency detention, the circumstances leading up to the issuance and execution of a detention warrant against the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Plaintiff was convicted of violating the National Security Act for which the warrant of detention was requested, etc., the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,000 as consolation money.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Awarding and decorations