현행범인 체포제도의 비교법적 고찰 (A Comparative Legal Study on the Arresting System of Current Criminals)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 원광대학교 경찰학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 경찰학논총 / 15권 / 1호 / 303 ~ 337페이지
· 저자명 : 유동하, 한종욱

초록

우리 대법원은 현행범인 체포의 요건으로 행위의 가벌성, 범죄의 현행성·시간적 접착성, 범인과 범죄의 명백성 그리고 체포의 필요성 등 4가지 요건을 요구한다. 이 중에서도 특히 체포의 필요성이 현장경찰관의 법집행에 가장 큰 영향을 미치는데, 모든 현행범에 체포의 필요성을 요구하는 법리가 공권력 약화를 초래하고 있다. 적정한 공권력 행사를 위해 경찰관이 현장에 임장한 상태에서도 폭력 등 범행을 중지하지 않거나 경찰관에게 폭력을 가하는 현행범인(‘진행형 현행범인’)에 대해서는 ‘체포의 필요성’을 의제하는 법리가 마련되어야 한다.
또한, 불필요한 공권력 행사를 줄이기 위해 형사소송법상 ‘신원확인’ 조항 입법이 필요하다. 현장에서 즉각적으로 신원확인이 이뤄지지 않기 때문인 범행이 중단된 후에도 현행범인 체포가 이뤄지는 경우가 많다. 주민등록법에 경찰에게 신원확인 요구 조항이 있기는 하나, 신원확인 거부 시 어떠한 강제조항도 없는 실정이다.
잘못된 공권력 행사를 바로잡기 위한 법원의 사후통제 강화도 필요하다. 법원은 정식재판에서만 체포의 필요성을 검토하고 약식명령 시에는 검토하지 않는다. 경찰의 현행범인 체포사건 대부분이 약식명령 대상에 해당한다. 실효적 통제를 위해 법원의 약식명령 시에도 위법한 체포에 대해서는 그 사유를 경찰에 통보할 필요가 있다.
비교법적으로 미국의 경찰관의 면전법칙과 예외사유의 확대, 그 중 가정폭력범죄는 경찰관의 면전범행이 아니더라도 체포할 수 있게 운용하는 점이 우리나라도 숙고해야 할 부분이다. 독일과 프랑스의 신원확인 가능조항, 일본의 경미범죄 체포사유의 확대 역시 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 향후 우리나라도 법리의 현실화, 신원확인 조항 입법 및 법원의 사후통제 강화 등을 통해서 현행범인 체포 시 공권력의 과잉이나 위축 논란을 상당 부분 줄일 수 있을 것이다.

영어초록

The Supreme Court of our nation continues to demand four requirements for the arrest of criminals. They are the possibility of punishment for action, temporal adhesion of crime, obviousness of crime and criminals, and the need for arrest. However, the legal principle that the need for arrest among the requirements for legality is necessary for arrest, which is all current crimes, has made the on-site police officer hesitant to enforce the law. I think the weak enforcement of public law now derives from the legal principles of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court should distinguish stopped current offenders from ongoing current ones. The former(stopped spot offenders) must be established a legal principle that the need for arrest becomes a legal requirement, but the latter(ongoing spot offenders) is not.
Stopped spot offenders are current offenders who stop the crimes just before a police officer is commissioned to the scene or stop further crimes after a police officer arrives at the scene. On-going spot offenders refers to current offenders who do not stop violence and other crimes even when a police officer is commissioned to the scene, or obstructs the execution of official duties by transferring the target of violence to a police officer.
For the Daejeon police, 10 percent of the current offenders in 2017 were obstruction of justice. The fact that obstruction of justice accounts for a large proportion of the current offenders means that their public power has weakened, and that those who do not need to be booked are being booked and punished.
The reason why an arbitrary companion or a spot arrestee in many crime scenes is because there is no immediate identity verification at the scene. Identifying them on the spot reduces the real need for a spot arrest and stops the violence. Therefore, the National Assembly should legislate an identity verification clause in the Criminal Procedure Act. Although there is a "request" clause in the resident registration law for identity verification from police, the target is limited to "criminal" and there is no mandatory provision for refusal of identity verification.
Most of the current arrests are subject to summary orders. The court does not review the requirements for the legality of an arrest in the event of an summary order. The court reviews the requirements for the need for arrest only after the defendant filed a formal appeal. Therefore, the court should notify the police officer of the reason if the police officer's current capture is illegal, even if the order is informal, because a considerable number of police officers believe that the requirements for arrest are not in the law and are actually unnecessary. On the contrary, many police officers believe that arrest is necessary even to prevent further crimes.
Comparatively speaking, the expansion of the law on the face of American police officers and reasons for exceptions. Among them, the fact that domestic violent crimes are managed so that they can be arrested even if they are not face-to-face criminals by police officers is something that Korea should also consider, the identification provisions of Germany and France, and the expansion of the reason for Japan's arrest of petty crimes are thought to have great implications for us.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will make the current law on the need for arrest a reality, and the National Assembly is eager to legislate the identification verification clause in the Criminal Procedure Act like Germany and France. If the law is realized and legislated, the use of police physical force could be lowered by one notch, and the number of arbitrary actions or current criminal arrests would be significantly reduced.

참고자료

· 없음