Whether it is permitted to detain a person who voluntarily committed an act in a police station for 6 hours under Article 3(6) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, which stipulates that the person concerned cannot stay in a police agency for more than 6 hours (negative)

Since the consent or consent of the other party is a requirement, if the other party receives a request for voluntary movement from the police officer, the other party can refuse it, and the other party shall be free to leave the police office at any time after voluntary movement. In the case of voluntary movement under Article 3(6) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 3(6) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers provides that the person concerned cannot be allowed to stay in the police office for more than 6 hours, it does not allow the detention of the person who voluntarily

Article 3 (6) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 85Mo16 decided July 29, 1985 (Gong1985, 1224)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 97No224 delivered on April 29, 1997

All appeals are dismissed.

1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as to the defendant by taking account of the evidence adopted by the court of first instance is just, and the argument that the court below found the facts or the defendant's act constitutes self-defense is not acceptable.

In addition, the court's decision to adopt the evidence as evidence may choose not to investigate it when it deems it unnecessary at the court's discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do826, Jun. 13, 1995, etc.). Thus, the court's decision to adopt the evidence requested by the defendant cannot be deemed unlawful merely because it did not adopt the evidence requested by the court.

2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

Since the consent or consent of the other party is a requirement, if the other party receives a request for voluntary movement from the police officer, the other party can refuse it, and the other party shall be free to leave the police office at any time after voluntary movement. In the case of voluntary movement under Article 3(6) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 3(6) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers provides that the person concerned cannot be allowed to stay in the police office for more than 6 hours, and it does not allow the person who voluntarily committed the act to detain him

On the premise of the above view, the court below acknowledged the facts that the defendant voluntarily carried on a police box and refused to undergo an examination, and attempted to leave the police box, and the police officer resisted the police officer, and resisted the police officer, and subsequently, the act of assaulting the police officer cannot be deemed legitimate execution of official duties, and therefore, the act of assaulting the police officer does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is just, and there is no violation of law as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

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

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)