(a) When a person who is a flagrant offender is considered to be immediately after the crime is committed;

B. The gist of the crime, the grounds for arrest or detention, and the right to appoint a defense counsel for the suspect, and whether the emergency arrest is unlawful without giving an opportunity to defend himself/herself

(c) Whether attracting them to a police station investigation atmosphere without a warrant of detention is illegal;

A. Article 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to a person who is immediately after the commission of a crime that is defined as a flagrant offender under Article 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to an obvious case in which the offender is the offender immediately after the commission of the crime is completed from the standpoint of the arrestingr. Since it is interpreted that the crime refers to the last and last stage of the crime or the corresponding time stage of the crime, it can be viewed as a flagrant offender only when it is deemed that there is a clear evidence of a crime regarding the fact that the person who is arrested is an offender who has committed the crime in time and place.

B. At the time of emergency detention, as stipulated in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, the summary of the crime, the grounds for arrest or detention, and the appointment of a defense counsel cannot be urgently detained unless it gives an opportunity to defend himself/herself. Thus, it cannot be deemed that compelling a suspect who clearly refuses to commit a crime falls under voluntary restraint, and thus, it is unfair physical restraint.

C. If an investigative waiting room in a police station limits access to a confinement facility for the prevention of an investigator and waiting person's escape and for the convenience of police services, etc., and the entrance of people waiting in the facility results in detention at a certain place without the consent of the person waiting in the facility, the detention of people waiting in the investigative room without the issuance of a detention warrant shall not be deemed an illegal confinement against the warrant requirement, except where a person in need of emergency relief, such as a mental deranger, the subject, and the person attempting to commit suicide, is limited to a facility that can take protective measures in the police station within the extent not exceeding 24 hours.

a.B.Article 750(a) of the Civil Code. Articles 211 and 212(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Articles 72 and 206(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Articles 73 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 4(1) and 4(7) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Do1314 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2641) (Gong1991, 2641) delivered on August 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2484). Supreme Court Decision 93Do958 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong194, 129)

Plaintiff 1 and 5 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee et al.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na49064 delivered on June 30, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. A. Article 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to a person who is immediately after the commission of a crime that is defined as a flagrant offender refers to an obvious case in which it is deemed that the offender is immediately after the commission of the crime is completed, and it is interpreted that the commission of the crime is completed immediately after the commission of the crime is completed, and therefore, it can be viewed as a flagrant offender only when it is deemed that there is a clear evidence of a crime regarding the fact that the person who is arrested is an offender who has committed the crime at a time and at a place, considering the time and place of time (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1314 delivered on September 24, 191).

As duly admitted by the court below, at around 03:30 on July 20, 192, the non-party 1, the president of the Seocho-gu Police Station at around 03:30, where the non-party 2 rejected the deceased's body on the business taxi located in Seocho-gu Seoul, the non-party 2, who is the victim of rape, may not find any scambling or intimidation or any scambling of reflector, which is the victim of rape from the deceased non-party 3, and the two persons are seated on the back of the Seocho Police Station, and it is hard to view that the non-party 1 et al., who belongs to the Seocho Police Station, opened a door to the above cab and opened it, and asked his defense counsel at the time of the above request for rescue, and if it is difficult to view that the non-party 2's act of rape was non-party 1 and the defendant 2 was non-party 1's defense counsel at the time of the above death.

B. In addition, as recognized in the facts and records duly admitted by the court below, if the waiting room for investigation into the police station where the deceased was detained is restricted to the entrance of the people waiting in the room for the prevention of the deceased's escape, the convenience of police services, etc., and the entrance of the people waiting in the room is restricted to the entrance of the above deceased. On the other hand, the detained person is detained at a certain place without his own will and resulting in the result of detention at a certain place, and thus, a person in need of emergency relief is restricted to a facility that can take protective measures against the police within the extent not exceeding 24 hours (Article 4 (1) and (7) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, except in a case where a person in need of emergency relief, such as a mental deranger, a host, and a suicide reporter, etc., under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, shall not be deemed an illegal confinement against the warrant requirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do958, Mar. 11, 1994).

2. The judgment of the court below to the above purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles. The grounds for appeal are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)