beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000, and the annual rate of KRW 5% from July 22, 2015 to June 10, 2016, and the following day.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. An investigator affiliated with the Defendant applied for a warrant of arrest on October 23, 2014, on the ground that “the Plaintiff participated in the Sewol ferry on August 15, 2014 and did not comply with a request for attendance due to the suspicion of interference with general traffic,” and the Seoul Eastern District Court issued a warrant of arrest against the Plaintiff until December 24, 2014.
B. However, the investigator in charge knew that the term of validity of the above arrest warrant was until August 14, 2024, which is the expiration date of the statute of limitations for general traffic obstruction and computerized inputs.
C. On July 21, 2015, the investigator affiliated with the Defendant arrested the Plaintiff in the street near Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Plaintiff’s residence. At the time, the investigator did not possess the original copy of the warrant of arrest. On the other hand, the investigator presented to the Plaintiff the fact that the police officer issued the warrant of arrest, and notified the name of the crime indicated in the above inquiry date, the fact that the warrant of arrest was issued, and the gist of the offense was replaced by the notice of the name of the crime.
The plaintiff was released on July 22, 2015 without any investigation after the arrest.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, witness C's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to Articles 200-5, 200-6, 75(1), and 85(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, where a judicial police officer arrests a suspect, he/she shall notify the gist of the offense, and present a warrant of arrest (original) without commencement of execution after the expiration of the term of validity of the warrant.
In addition, in the case of notifying the summary of the suspected crime, it is insufficient to simply notify the name of the crime, and it is necessary to give notice to the extent that it can be known as to which crime is detained.
However, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant belongs to the defendant.