Standard for determining urgency, which is the requirement of emergency arrest under Article 200-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and standard for determining illegality of emergency arrest

The urgency, which is the requirement of an emergency arrest under Article 200-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, should be determined objectively by comprehensively taking account of the data, etc. collected by the suspect at the time of emergency arrest. As a result, it is found that there was time to request an arrest warrant in light of social norms, and thus, there was no reasonable ground for emergency arrest even though it was revealed that there was no time to request an arrest warrant, so such emergency arrest is illegal only when there is a circumstance to recognize that the emergency arrest was conducted without undergoing an

Article 20-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

Radyang

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 2002Na3405 delivered on December 26, 2002

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

1. The court below found that the plaintiff did not appear in the above-mentioned cafeteria on September 1, 1998 and established additional pharmacies with the same name on Kim Jong-ju and Lee Ki-taik while operating his pharmacy in the Gunsan, and around that time, the plaintiff would have been in the same business after receiving investment from Jeon Jin and Lee Ki-taik around February 200 and operated his pharmacy as a pharmacist, and the non-party 1 did not employ a pharmacist qualified as a herb pharmacist. However, even if the non-party 1 did not have a herb pharmacist's license, it was suspected that the non-party 1 could not have forged and possessed the plaintiff's license even if he was not a herb pharmacist, and it was discovered that there was a concern that the plaintiff was not a pharmacist and the non-party 1 had an arrest warrant of the plaintiff 1, who was under suspicion of non-party 1, who was in charge of arresting the plaintiff at the time of the above-mentioned cafeteria, and that there was an emergency arrest warrant of the non-party 2, who was issued by the prosecutor.

2. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The urgency, which is the requirement of an emergency arrest under Article 200-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, should be determined objectively by comprehensively taking account of the data, etc. collected by the suspect at the time of emergency arrest. As a result, it is found that there was time to request an arrest warrant in light of social norms, and thus, there was no reasonable ground for emergency arrest even though it was revealed that there was no time to request an arrest warrant, so such emergency arrest is illegal only when there is a circumstance to recognize that the emergency arrest was conducted without undergoing an

In this case, during the investigation agency's control over the narcotics and psychotropic drugs by Byung on June 10, 200, there was considerable reason to suspect that the plaintiff's herb pharmacist's license forged at the above pharmacy operated by the plaintiff as a partner was suspected of violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and committing a crime under the Public Document Related Act, and the plaintiff, who operated the above pharmacy, operated the above pharmacy. Although the plaintiff had conducted an internal investigation, it was difficult to conclude that the investigation agency failed to collect clear evidence regarding the charge of the crime did not have any risk of destroying evidence even if the plaintiff requested the plaintiff's attendance at the time of June 21, 200, when the investigation was conducted, it cannot be said that there was no urgency in the emergency arrest of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the emergency arrest of the plaintiff was conducted even though there was no objective and reasonable ground for the act of emergency arrest by considering the urgency collected at the time of the investigator, such as farine, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in interpreting the requirements of emergency arrest and state liability and thereby affecting the judgment, which held that emergency arrest against the plaintiff was illegal.

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)