경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 * 차례 나달숙 ** Ⅰ. 서론 1) Ⅱ. 공무집행방해의대응현황 Ⅲ. 공무집행방해의법적판단기준과 대응수단 Ⅴ. 결론 국문요약 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 Ⅰ. 서론 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 Ⅱ. 공무집행방해의대응현황 1. 수사기관의직무수행원칙 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 2. 수사기관의공무집행방해에대한대응현황 1) 검찰의공무집행방해에대한대응강화 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 < 표 1> 2014년도사건처리현황공무집행방해죄처리현황연월처분계구속 (%) 불구속 (%) 약식 (%) 불기소 (%) ( 단위 : 명 ) 2014.1 1,102 46(4.2%) 139(12.5%) 831(75.4%) 65(5.99%) 시행전 2014.2. 1,184 49(4.1%) 206(17.4%) 831(70.2%) 75(6.33%) 2014.3. 1,098 56(5.1%) 363(33.1%) 537(48.9%) 101(9.19%) 2014.4. 1,221 167(13.7%) 719(58.9%) 198(16.2%) 96(7.9%) 2014.5. 1,481 239(16.1%) 873(58.9%) 160(10.8%) 132(8.9%) 시행후 2014.6. 1,471 216(14.7%) 954(64.9%) 190(12.9%) 51(3.5%) 2014.7. 1,563 207(13.2%) 984(63.0%) 214(13.7%) 94(6.0%) 2014.8. 1,345 140(10.4%) 855(63.6%) 196(14.6%) 80(5.9%) 2014.9. 1,387 151(10.9%) 933(67.3%) 189(13.6%) 69(5.0%) 누계 1,120 5,318 3,346 763 출처 : 대검찰청, 경찰관폭행공무집행방해사범엄정대처 2014. 11. 17. 보도자료 2) 수사경찰의공무집행방해사범사법처리현황 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 < 그림 1> 2014 년수사경찰 치안종합성과평가 중구속영장발부율평가항목 구속영장발부율 (2~5) 구속영장신청에대한영장발부율을전국평균과비교 기준 ( 평균 ) 5% 이상 5% 미만 ~ 평균 평균미만 ~5% ~5% 미만 배점 5점 4점 3점 2점 세부기준 - 산출식 : 구속영장발부건수 / 구속영장신청건수 100 - 영장구분 : 구속영장에한정 ( 단, 공무집행방해사범에대한구속영장은제외 ) - 산출기준 : KICS 통계를기준으로산출 출처 : 2015 국정감사보도자료 (2015.9.13.) 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 < 표 2> 공무집행방해사법처리현황 (2010-2014) ( 단위 : 명 ) 연도별 총계공무집행방해조치검거인원계구속불구속구속불구속 2010 13,360 826 12,534 674 10,758 2011 13,052 840 12,212 674 10,301 2012 14,389 729 13,660 539 11,760 2013 13,407 573 12,834 433 11,536 2014 15,142 1,617 13,525 1,370 12,041 출처 : 2014 경찰통계연보, 138쪽 3) 공무집행방해대응장비사용현황 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 < 표 3> 테이저건사용현황 연도 2012 2013 2014 2015.6. 사용횟수 199 271 328 201 출처 : 임수경의원제출 2015 국감자료 ( 서울지방경찰청제출 ) 6) 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 Ⅲ. 공무집행방해의법적판단기준과대응수단 1. 공무집행방해의법적판단기준 1) 공무집행의의미 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 2) 공무집행의적법성 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 3) 폭행ㆍ협박의정도 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 2. 공무집행방해의법적대응수단 1) 주취자에대한조치 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 < 표 4> 음주단속중피단속차량에의한경찰공무원사상현황 ( 단위 : 명 ) 구분 계 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015. 6. 사망 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 부상 181 44 31 33 30 28 15 출처 : 국회의원유대운의원공개자료 36) Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 2) 불심검문 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 3) 경찰장비등사용 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 Ⅳ. 결론 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 주제어 (Key Words) : 공무집행방해 (public affairs executive interference), 주취자문제 (drunkperson problem), 불심검문 (checkpoints), 경찰장비 (police equipment), 공권력남용 (abuse of public power) < 논문접수 : 2015. 11. 4, 심사개시 : 2015. 11. 17, 게재확정 : 2015. 12. 23> 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 참고문헌 Ⅰ. 국내문헌 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 Ⅱ. 외국문헌 Police Science Institute
경찰의공무집행방해대응현황과법적허용수단 Na, Dal-Sook Penal Code 136 Article, and defines a public affairs executive interference crime to allow punished by a fine of not more than five years in prison or 10 million won. The spirit, which defines the public service interference as punishment, by state agencies to control that to interfere in order to enforce the proper law, are trying to protect the public service is a country of function. In this paper, and is configured in Chapter 4. Chapter 2, for obstructing executive officers, for the corresponding situation in the police, it was examined the current state of public affairs executive interference judicial processing of five years. Chapter 3, the legal authorization of defined public affairs executive to legal criteria and the police duties of enforcement methods required to determine the public affairs executive interference to imply the legal provisions relating to public affairs executive interference, it was examined mainly on drunkperson problem, checkpoints, police equipment. Obstructing executive officers crime that occurs during the execution of the duties of the police civil service has a public service to try to achieve a public authority execution, has been able to use the dominant position and authority in relation to its subject, and its authority, by 치안정책연구소
2015 치안정책연구제 29 권제 3 호 utilizing the enforcement must be to avoid abuse public power. Under the judgment of the intimidation and violence of the scene police officers has exceeded the limit in the process of implementing a public power, hard-line Policy of investigation agencies, and led to an increase in the arrest warrant, so that human rights violations can be generated in this process, become. In a free democratic constitutional state, All the people should observe the law and state power protects the people's freedom and rights, the power action in order to guarantee the basic rights of the people. Furthermore, should not be unduly infringe on the national basic rights in preference to governance action of the state the basic rights guaranteed national. In a country of rule of law, to the state power to limit the fundamental rights of citizens, it must be always law, the limited national security, maintain order, is limited due to the public well-being, if you want to limit, also, its essential content can not be a violation. And thus when the exercise civil servants a state power to the public service executive also become restricted by these general methods reserves, it is necessary to protect the appropriate public service executive defined by the law and the legal public service. Police Science Institute