현행범인 체포 및 임의제출물 압수와 관련한 대법원의 태도에 대한 연구 - 대법원 2016. 2. 18. 선고 2015도13726 판결 - (The study on Supreme Court’s Attitude of Arrest of Flagrant Offender and Seizure of a Voluntarily Produced Item)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 중앙법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 중앙법학 / 18권 / 4호 / 339 ~ 372페이지
· 저자명 : 이순옥

초록

수사기관이 피고인이 필로폰을 소지하고 밀입국한다는 제보를 입수하고 나서 피고인이 밀입국한 선박을 영장 없이 수색하여 피고인을 필로폰 밀수입 등으로 현행범인 체포, 필로폰을 임의제출 받은 사건의 대법원 판결(2015도13726호)을 통해서 현행범인 체포와 임의제출물 압수에 관한 판례의 태도에 대하여 검토하였다. 현행범인 체포의 요건(형사소송법 제211조, 제212조) 및 체포필요성을 충족하는 적법한 체포인지 여부, 체포현장 부근에서 이 사건 필로폰을 발견하고 체포된 피의자를 상대로 필로폰을 제출받은 것을 임의제출물의 압수(형사소송법 제218조)로서 적법한 것으로 볼 수 있는지 여부, 체포현장에서 체포된 자를 상대로 임의제출을 받은 경우 사후에 압수수색영장을 발부받아야 하는 것인지 여부에 대하여 살펴보았다. 검토한 결과, 위 사건 1심 및 항소심 법원의 판단과는 달리 구체적 상황을 모두 고려하여 현행범인 체포 및 임의제출 압수의 적법성을 인정한 위 판례는 타당하다고 생각된다.

영어초록

According to Article 211(Flagrant Offender and Quasi-Flagrant Offender) (1) of Korean Code of Criminal Procedure, a person who is in the act of committing a crime or has just committed it shall be called a flagrant offender. and Article 212(Arrest of Flagrant Offender) of Korean Code of Criminal Procedure, any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant.
According to Article 218(Seizure Without Warrant) of Korean Code of Criminal Procedure, a prosecutor or senior judicial police officer may seize an article which has been discarded by a criminal suspect or any other person, or those which have been voluntarily produced by their owner, possessor, or custodian without a warrant.
The present paper reviews a recent Supreme Court of Korea decision(2015do13726) of 2016 regarding an requirements for arrest of flagrant and requirements for legal seizure without warrant of a voluntary production.
In the 2016 decision, the supreme court held that officers could arrest a flagrant offender who hid methamphetamine and didn't have it, if the methamphetamine was discovered in the barge where the offender was. Also, the supreme court held that officers could seize a production which was provided voluntarily by the arrested flagrant offender. At that time, the officer should explain the meaning of voluntary submission, the offender should know that he could refuse to provide it, he might not get back.
But in the 2015 decision(2014gohab718, 1114, 2011gohab1018), the Seoul Central District Court and in the 2014 decision(2015no1515), the Seoul High Court held that the arrestment and the seizure without warrant were illegal, so the Courts regarded the submission of the methamphetamine as illegal and inadmissible to the trial.
The Supreme Court decision seems to be right to the Case, because the Court considered many things about the situation when the methamphetamine was provided to the officer and severity of the crime.

참고자료

· 없음