beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal (legal scenarios) asserts to the effect that this case constitutes a case in which the prosecution procedure is null and void because the public prosecution right has been abused as follows.
As to the facts charged in this case regarding the illegality of arrest of flagrant offenders, the investigation agency did not notify the defendant of the summary, etc. of the suspected crime even though the defendant is not a flagrant offender, and arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender, so the process of arrest of the defendant in the
B. A public prosecution was instituted in a manner unfavorable to the defendant, such as making an implied request for an investigation into both violence of the defendant, and filing a separate prosecution against the case.
2. Determination
A. In order to arrest a flagrant offender as a judgment on the allegation of illegality of the arrest of the flagrant offender, it should be determined based on the circumstances at the time of the arrest, i.e., the necessity of the arrest, i., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, in addition to the punishment of the act, the current and time contact of the crime, and the apparentness of the criminal and the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 1999). In order to arrest the flagrant offender as a judgment on the illegality of the arrest of the flagrant offender,
Therefore, in light of the circumstances at the time of arrest, unless the judgment of the investigating authority on the requirements is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule, the arrest of the investigating authority is not determined to be unlawful.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8184 Decided November 29, 2012, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the police officer F, etc. was dispatched to the site upon receiving 112 report to the effect that “the police officer, etc. was subject to violence” was called to the site. ② Even at the site where police officers, such as F, etc. were called to the site, the Defendant was taking tobacco inside the victim’s office and expressed desire for the victim’s escape.
Facts that the agency does not comply with the request, 3. F.