경찰관 상대 모욕 현행범인 체포의 요건
Requirements to arrest the flagrant delictor who insulted police officers
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Today, those cases which drunk people are to be put to violent to police officers that perform the public service in the night are going to frequently. If a drunk man did a assault and intimidation to police officers that are performing a public service, he can be punished by public affairs executive interference sin, but if he tried only an abuse, he can be arrested and punished by contempt. But there is criticism that abuse the public authority for this. Whether arrest of flagrant delictor is legitimate, it is to be judged on the basis of the time of arrest situation, and police officers must have an accurate understanding of the requirements of arrest. For this, the law and judicial precedent must give an accurate guide line to police officers in order that able to arrest the culprit and to crush the crime. However, if there are different conclusions that the cases of two of judgment there is no difference, precedents of the court is not the role of the criteria was firmly in the investigation field of clear distinction, the side is that rather it was confusing. In order to solve this confusion, I think that “anxiety of flee or destroy evidence” shall be excluded as the requirements of a flagrant delictor, and if not a serious case or a urgent case need to determine whether there is a need to arrest.
Abstract
Today, those cases which drunk people are to be put to violent to police officers that perform the public service in the night are going to frequently. If a drunk man did a assault and intimidation to police officers that are performing a public service, he can be punished by public affairs executive interference sin, but if he tried only an abuse, he can be arrested and punished by contempt. But there is criticism that abuse the public authority for this. Whether arrest of flagrant delictor is legitimate, it is to be judged on the basis of the time of arrest situation, and police officers must have an accurate understanding of the requirements of arrest. For this, the law and judicial precedent must give an accurate guide line to police officers in order that able to arrest the culprit and to crush the crime. However, if there are different conclusions that the cases of two of judgment there is no difference, precedents of the court is not the role of the criteria was firmly in the investigation field of clear distinction, the side is that rather it was confusing. In order to solve this confusion, I think that “anxiety of flee or destroy evidence” shall be excluded as the requirements of a flagrant delictor, and if not a serious case or a urgent case need to determine whether there is a need to arrest.
참고문헌 (26)
- 권오걸, "형사소송법-이론.판례-" (2010), 형설출판사
- 노명선, "형사소송법" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 배종대, "신형사소송법(제4판)" (2012), 홍문사
- 백형구, "주석 형사소송법(Ⅲ)" (2009), 한국사법행정연구원
- 백형구, "형사소송법" (2012), 법원사
- 법무부, "프랑스 형사소송법" (2011)
- 손동권, "형사소송법(개정신판)" (2010), 세창출판사
- 송광섭, "형사소송법(개정판)" (2012), 형설출판사
- 신동운, "신형사소송법(제4판)" (2012), 법문사
- 신양균, "형사소송법(신판)" (2009), 화산미디어
- 심희기, "형사소송법 판례(제2판)" (2003), 홍문사
- 이은모, "형사소송법(제3판)" (2012), 박영사
- 이재상, "신형사소송법(제2판)" (2008), 박영사
- 임동규, "형사소송법(제8판)" (2012), 법문사
- 정웅석, "형사소송법(전정제5판)" (2012), 대명출판사
- 차용석, "형사소송법(제3판)" (2008), 21세기사
- 김대성, "현행법상 현행범인 체포제도의 문제점과 개선방안", 형사법연구, 25(1), pp.271~292 (2013), 한국형사법학회
- 김문호, "경찰의 체포권 남용방지에 관한 연구", 법학연구, (40), pp.177~197 (2010), 한국법학회
- 노정환, "현행 체포제도에 대한 실무적 고찰", 법조, 62(8), pp.181~237 (2013), 법조협회
- 심희기, "현행범체포의 요건", 영남법학, 1(1) (1994), 영남대학교 법학연구소
- 이동희, "한국과 일본의 체포‧구속제도에 대한 비교연구 - 체포‧구속의 법제 및 실무운용을 중심으로 -", 비교형사법연구, 11(1), pp.63~94 (2009), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이성기, "경찰관에 대한 모욕죄의 성립요건과 고소사건 처리에 관한 검토 및 정책제언", 경찰의 모욕죄 현행범 체포의 문제점과 개선방안 토론회자료집 (2014), 국가인권위원회
- 이재석, "체포제도의 운용과 현실", 비교형사법연구, 1(1) (1999), 한국비교형사법학회
- 주용환, "체포제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2009
- 한동훈, "미국 형사사법상 주요 제도의 실무운용에 대한 검토", 해외연수검사연구논문집, 22 (2006), 법무연수원
- 황문규, "현행범체포의 요건으로서 체포의 필요성에관한 비판적 검토", 형사정책연구, 25(3), pp.1~32 (2014), 한국형사정책연구원
