(a) Whether a legitimate performance of official duty is to attract a suspect to a protection room without issuance of a detention warrant;

(b) Obligation to notify the reason at the time of arrest and emergency arrest of the flagrant offender;

(c) Duty to give notice when taking protective measures to police agencies under the Act on the Performance of Duties.

A. The protection room established at a police station is actually established and operated in a confinement facility for the prevention of airmen in the warrant, i.e., airmens, etc., and for the convenience of police affairs. However, there is no provision under the current law on the grounds for its installation, operation, and regulation. Such protection room is an ordinary steel room in its facility and structure, and anyone waiting in the room or his/her family members are restricted from entering the facility and thus resulting in detention at a certain place without his/her intention. Thus, except where a person in need of emergency relief, such as mentally or physically handicapped persons, masters, and suicide reporters, is limited to a facility that can take protective measures to a police agency within the extent not exceeding 24 hours under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, attracting a suspect to the protection room without having a detention warrant issued, and it cannot be deemed an unlawful detention contrary to the warrant requirement, and thus, lawful performance of official duties

B. In order to urgently arrest or detain a suspect in the act of committing an offense without a warrant of detention, the arrest or emergency detention shall not be effected unless the suspect has given an opportunity to defend himself/herself by informing him/her of the summary of the crime, the reasons for arrest or detention, and the appointment of a defense counsel as provided in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act at the time of arrest

C. According to Article 4(1) and (4) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, when a police officer finds a person who is likely to cause harm to his/her or another person's life, body and property, and who is in danger of harm to him/herself or a person in danger of harm to another person's life, body and property, based on reasonable judgment on the water behavior and other surrounding circumstances, he/she may take appropriate measures, such as protecting the person in need of emergency relief to the police agency for a period not exceeding 24 hours. However, even in this case, when the police officer takes such measures, the police officer must notify the person's

A. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 4(1) and 7(2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers; Articles 12(3) proviso and 12(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 212, 206, 213-2, 209, and 72(c) of the Criminal Act; Articles 4(1) and 4(4) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Do2406 decided Mar. 9, 1971 (No. 1999Sang92) 85Mo16 decided Jul. 29, 1985 (Gong1985,1224). Supreme Court Decision 93Da3515 decided Nov. 23, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 185)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Won-gu

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No3607 delivered on March 9, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below's decision is correct in holding that the defendant 1 was prosecuted merely for violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and that the defendant does not seem to be guilty for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and there is no violation of law such as theory of action. There is no reason to discuss.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, among the facts charged in the case of this case, the court below acquitted the defendant on the part that the defendant 2 et al. was killed and injured by the victim 2 et al. al. who was sculed out of the police station and sculed by the victim 3 et al., who al., sculed by the defendant, and obstructed his official duties at the same time, on the ground that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is recognized as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act against the above victims, but the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is deemed to be a crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violence, etc. against the above victims, and the detention of the suspect in the protective room in light of the facilities and structure of the protective room installed and operated by the police station is a measure with the same effect as the actual detention. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act of attracting the suspect in the protective room cannot be deemed as a legitimate official duty.

A protective cell established in a police station is actually established and operated in a confinement facility for the prevention of a warrant airr, i.e., air conditioner, etc., and for the convenience of police affairs. However, there is no provision in the current law on the grounds for its installation, operation, and regulation under the current law, and such protective cell is ordinarily installed in the facility and structure, and thus people waiting in the facility or their family members are restricted from entering the facility or their family members, and thus, they are detained in a certain place without their own intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Do2406, Mar. 9, 191; Supreme Court Order 85Mo16, Jul. 29, 1985). Thus, a protective cell is operated in a facility that can take protective measures to a police agency within the extent not exceeding 24 hours (Article 4(1) and (7) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, except for a warrant issued by the Police Officers Act).

The court below's order that the defendant was not subject to a warrant of detention in the custody of the defendant in the public health room and the protective room of the defendant is just and it is not possible to arrest or detain the defendant without a warrant of detention (proviso of Article 12 (3) of the Constitution, Articles 212 and 206 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The court below's order that the defendant's life or body could not be reasonably arrested or detained unless the defendant is given an opportunity to defend the suspect, as stipulated in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act at the time of arrest or emergency detention (see Article 12 (5) of the Constitution, Articles 213-2, 209, and 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 93Da3515 of Nov. 23, 1993). Thus, the court below's order that the defendant's life or body should be protected by the police officer's lawful confinement of the defendant without any justifiable reason. Thus, the court below's order that the defendant's life or body should not be protected by the police officer.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)