수사목적 불심검문 사안(事案)의 판단 법리 ― 대법원 2006. 7. 6. 선고 2005도6810 판결; 대법원ﾠ2014. 12. 11.ﾠ선고ﾠ2014도7976ﾠ판결을 대상으로 ―
A study on the grounds for court’s ruling in Trials about investigative stop and frisk
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study examines what it is like to be the Court’s Ruling about investigative stop and frisk. In this article I discussed also the differences between the provisions of the Korean Stop and Frisk and that of the other countries such as U.S.A., Germany and Japan. The police officer used to stop and frisk for purposes of investigation when the circumstances justify suspicion but fall short of probable cause. The suspected might be arrested only if there was something close to probable cause for the police officer to believe that he had committed an offense. However, criminal trials has been required to exclude illegally obtained evidence from investigative stop and frisk. According to the Court’s Ruling, any investigation, having been taken place before recognition process, could be considered as a part of the investigation scope. The investigative stop might be regarded as investigative activities. There, the excessive violation of human rights should be strictly forbidden. As a result, the more neutral scrutiny of a judge might be required in trials about investigative stop. Therefore the rule of law doctrine has to be respected as follows. Firstly, the rights of the people shouldn’t be restricted excessively to maintain safety and order of public, but the fundamental human rights must be protected. Secondly, the privacy and freedom of people are citizen’s privilege to enjoy his social lives. Thus no citizens shall not be unfairly or illegally violated by the police power. Lastly, We must always keep attention to protect the rights of the people in those investigative activities from being unfairly infringed by the police authority.
Abstract
This study examines what it is like to be the Court’s Ruling about investigative stop and frisk. In this article I discussed also the differences between the provisions of the Korean Stop and Frisk and that of the other countries such as U.S.A., Germany and Japan. The police officer used to stop and frisk for purposes of investigation when the circumstances justify suspicion but fall short of probable cause. The suspected might be arrested only if there was something close to probable cause for the police officer to believe that he had committed an offense. However, criminal trials has been required to exclude illegally obtained evidence from investigative stop and frisk. According to the Court’s Ruling, any investigation, having been taken place before recognition process, could be considered as a part of the investigation scope. The investigative stop might be regarded as investigative activities. There, the excessive violation of human rights should be strictly forbidden. As a result, the more neutral scrutiny of a judge might be required in trials about investigative stop. Therefore the rule of law doctrine has to be respected as follows. Firstly, the rights of the people shouldn’t be restricted excessively to maintain safety and order of public, but the fundamental human rights must be protected. Secondly, the privacy and freedom of people are citizen’s privilege to enjoy his social lives. Thus no citizens shall not be unfairly or illegally violated by the police power. Lastly, We must always keep attention to protect the rights of the people in those investigative activities from being unfairly infringed by the police authority.
참고문헌 (63)
- 김인회, "형사소송법" (2018), 피앤씨미디어
- 경찰관직무집행법의 개선방안 연구, "김재광", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2003)
- 김충남, "경찰수사론" (2008), 박영사
- 박민주, "신범죄수사법-불심검문편" (1952), 경육연구사
- 배종대, "형사소송법" (2016), 홍문사
- 손동권, "새로운 형사소송법" (2010), 세창출판사
- 신동운, "신형사소송법" (2014), 법문사
- 신동운, "판례분석 신형사소송법" (2007), 법문사
- 신동운, "판례분석 신형사소송법 Ⅱ" (2014), 법문사
- 신동운, "판례분석 신형사소송법 Ⅲ" (2017), 법문사
- 신동운, "효당 엄상섭 형사소송법논집" (2005), 서울대학교출판부
- 신현주, "형사소송법" (2002), 박영사
- 이승민, "프랑스의 경찰행정" (2014), 경인문화사
- 이은모, "형사소송법" (2018), 박영사
- 임동규, "형사소송법" (2015), 법문사
- 정웅석, "형사소송법" (2012), 대명출판사
- 진계호, "형사소송법" (2004), 형설출판사
- Schenke, Wolf-Rüdiger, "독일경찰법론" (2001), 세창출판사
- 한국경찰사편찬위원회, "한국경찰사 Ⅰ" (1972), 내부부 치안국
- "경찰실무전서", 경찰대학, ~ (1998)
- 古谷洋一, "註釋警察官職務執行法" (2014), 立花書房
- 渡辺修, "職務質問の硏究" (1992), 成文堂
- 渡辺修, "大コンメンタール警察官職務執行法" (1993), 靑林書院
- 渡辺直行, "刑事訴訟法" (2013), 成文堂
- 渡邊宗太郞, "新警察法と美國警察制度" (1949), 有斐閣
- 渥美東洋, "刑事訴訟を考える" (1992), 日本評論社
- 田宮裕, "刑事訴訟法 Ⅰ" (1975), 有斐閣
- 白取祐司, "刑事訴訟法" (2017), 日本評論社
- 松本時夫, "條解 刑事訴訟法" (2016), 弘文堂
- 宇藤崇, "刑事訴訟法" (2018), 有斐閣
- 井上正仁, "刑事訴訟法制定資料全集― 昭和刑事訴訟法編(9)" (2015), 信山社出版社
- 井上正仁, "裁判例コンメンタール刑事訴訟法(第2卷)" (2017), 立花書房
- 酒卷匡, "刑事訴訟法" (2015), 有斐閣
- 出口雄一, "前後法制改革と占領管理體制" (2017), 慶應義塾大學出版會株式會社
- 平野龍一, "刑事訴訟法" (1972), 有斐閣
- 河上和雄, "大コメンタール警察官職務執行法" (1993), 靑林書院
- 河上和雄, "大コメンタール刑事訴訟法" (2012), 靑林書院
- 後藤昭, "新· コンメンタール刑事訴訟法" (2018), 日本評論社
- Joshua Dressler, "Criminal Procedure" (2017), West Academic
- Donald A. Dripps, "Criminal Law and Procedure" (2017), Foundation Press
- Franz-Ludwig Knemeyer, "Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht" (1993), C.H.BECK’SCHE VERLAGSBUCHHANDLUNG
- Sebastian Söllner, "Polizei-und Ordnungsrecht Kommentar" (2017), Carl Heymanns Verlag
- Stefan Süss, "Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Bundespolizei und den Länderpolizeien und ihre verfassungsrechtlichen Grenzen" (2016)
- Wolf-Rüdiger Schenke, "Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht" (2018), C. F. Müller
- 경찰관직무집행법 개정방향에 관한 연구, "서정범", 치안연구소, ~ (2003)
- 신동운, "서독의 사법경찰", 경찰고시, ~ (1989)
- 이관희, "독일의 통일경찰법모범초안에 있어서 몇 가지 문제", 경찰대 논문집 (1993)
- 이영돈, "불심검문에서 ‘정지’의 요건과 한계 - 미국의 stop and frisk 법리와의 비교 -", 법학논집, 18(4), pp.165~191 (2014), 법학연구소
- 이용식, "위법성조각사유의 전제사실의 착오에 대한 대법원판례의 이해구조 -오상을 이유로 하는 위법성조각과 정당방위상황의 인정- -판례의 시각에 대한 학계의 이해부족-", 형사판례연구, 24, pp.157~198 (2016), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 이용훈, "불심검문의 남용", 사법행정 (1967)
- 이은모, "직무질문에 있어서 유형력 행사의 법적 한계", 법학논총, 15 (1998), 한양대법학연구소
- 이호중, "경찰관직무집행법상 불심검문제도의 개정논의에 대한 비판적 고찰", 형사법연구, 21(3), pp.105~134 (2009), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 정신교, "불심검문의 적법성의 한계와 개선방안", 법학논총, 29, pp.403~426 (2013), 법학연구소
- 정하중, "독일경찰법의 체계와 한국 경찰관직무집행법의 개선방향(下)", 사법행정 (1994)
- 조인현, "경찰관 불심검문의 수사관련 집행현황과 제약 요인 고찰 - 경직법 제3조 1항을 중심으로 -", 형사법연구, 25(2), pp.299~335 (2013), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 황문규, "검경 수사권 조정에 관한 법안의 비교․검토", 형사정책, 30(3), pp.33~68 (2018), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
- "법정신문, 제402호", ~ (1939)
- 古谷洋一, "講座警察法 第一卷" (2014), 立花書房
- 半谷恭一, "搜査法大系Ⅰ" (1973), 日本評論社
- 小暮得雄, "現行犯の制止", 法律のひろば (1968)
- 宋尾浩也, "職務質問と所持品檢査", 法律のひろば (1968)
- 長沼範良, "所持品檢査", 別冊ジュリスト, (232) (2017)
- "Police power to stop, frisk, and question suspicious persons", Columbia Law Review, 65(5) (1965)