일본의 성범죄자처우프로그램

박상열,강경래 한국교정학회 2008 矯正硏究 Vol.- No.39

In April 2005, the Correction Bureau and the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Justice launched the Sex Offender Treatment Program Research Group for developing more scientific and systematic sex offender treatment programs. The research group integrated the current state of sex offender treatment at prisons and probation offices and the results of sex offender treatment in foreign countries, and examined requirements for sex offender treatment programs effectively applicable in Japan. As a result, a standard program for sex offender treatment was created in March 2006 and has been being executed mainly by correction facilities and probation offices. The full scale execution of such a sex offender treatment program was largely prompted by the fact that the criminal in the case of kidnapping and murdering a young girl in Nara in November 2004 had a record of sex crime. With the case, there was a high public opinion demanding strong measures and corrective treatment against sex offenders. In Japan, various policies are made and executed to protect the society from sex crimes, and actions such as the enactment of new laws and the execution of sex offender treatment programs are introduced in order to cope with changing sex crimes more effectively. The present study reviewed the contents of the sex offender treatment program in Japan, and suggested implications and measures necessary for making sex offender treatment programs demanded also in Korea. 2005년 4월 일본법무성(The Ministry of Justice)의 교정국(Correction Bureau)과 보호국(Rehabilitation Bureau)은 과학적이고 체계적인 성범죄자처우프로그램(Sex Offender Treatment Program)을 만들기 위하여 공동으로 성범죄자처우프로그램연구회를 만들었다. 이 연구회에서는 종래의 형사시설 및 보호관찰소(Probation Offices)를 중심으로 이루어져 왔던 성범죄자처우현황과 다른 국가에서 실시되고 있는 성범죄자처우의 실시결과와 그에 대한 연구 등을 집약하여 일본에서 유효하게 작용될 수 있는 성범죄자처우프로그램에 대한 검토가 이루어졌다. 그 결과 2006년 3월 성범죄자처우를 위한 표준프로그램이 만들어져 현재 각 교정시설과 보호관찰소를 중심으로 실시되고 있다. 이러한 성범죄자처우프로그램의 본격적인 실시에는 2004년 11월에 발생한 나라(奈良)여아유괴살인사건의 범인이 성범죄 전과가 있는 자였다는 사실이 크게 작용하였다. 이 사건을 계기로 성범죄자에 대한 강력한 대응과 교정처우의 개선을 요구하는 여론이 높아졌던 것이다. 일본에서는 성범죄로부터 사회를 보호하기 위하여 다양한 시책을 마련하여 실시하고 있으며 또한 변모하는 성범죄에 대하여 보다 효과적으로 대응하기 위하여 관계 법률의 제정 및 성범죄자처우프로그램의 실시 등을 통하여 성범죄로부터 안전한 사회를 만들기 위한 조치가 시행되고 있다. 이에 본 논문에서는 일본의 성범죄자처우프로그램의 내용에 대하여 개관하고 현재 우리나라에서도 그 필요성이 요구되고 있는 성범죄자처우프로그램의 책정에 있어서 필요한 시사점과 이에 따른 대책 등을 강구하였다.

흉악범죄 피의자의 신상공개 기준과 절차 ― ‘특정강력범죄의 처벌에 관한 특례법’ 제8조의 2 재검토 ―

정용기 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2010 성균관법학 Vol.22 No.2

Since 2005, public disclosure of personal information of heinous crime suspects(serial murderer, sex crime offender, etc.) has been prohibited by the regulation. However, series of heinous offenses reported by media has raised demand of disclosure of personal information of those offenders. Recently, some of media has disclosed personal information of those offenders in order to satisfy the right of public awareness. From March 2010, police have passively exposed heinous offenders' face during the police custody. In other nations, there is no special law to disclose of heinous offender but police and media disclose their faces and personal information without any obstruction. Disclosure of heinous offender's information can take a place when public demand to know the offender's personal information is considered more important than protection of personal information of offender. The standard of disclosure of offender's personal information is when police obtain clear confession and evidence of crime. In addition, it can be also considered that disclosure of offender's personal information satisfy the necessity of the public interest. In March 2010, the Congress revised "the Special Act of Punishment of Serious Offense" and it makes possible to disclose heinous offender's personal information. However, this law has a procedural flaw that decision making is at the hand of prosecutor and police investigator. Since the constitutional principle of "Presumption of Innocence" can be restricted by the Court's decision, the disclosure of offender's personal information has to be decided by the Court so that it minimizes the infringement of offender's right. In fact, the writ of Hebeas Corpus(You have the body) is decided by the Court so that the disclosure of offender's personal information has to be decided by the Court too.

현행법상 현행범인 체포제도의 문제점과 개선방안

김대성 韓國刑事法學會 2013 형사법연구 Vol.25 No.1

The criminal procedure act of Korea provides arrest with warrant, emergency arrest and arrest of flagrant offender as the types of arrest. Among these, criticisms and concerns have mostly been centralized on emergency arrest. But the recent statistics indicate that arrest of flagrant offender is most frequently carried out, that the rate of police requesting detention warrant for arrested flagrant offenders is the lowest and that the rate of prosecution dismissing detention warrant for arrested flagrant offenders is the highest. According to the criminal procedure act, a person who is in the act of committing a crime or has just committed it shall be called a flagrant offender and any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant. And a quasi-flagrant offender, a person who falls under any of the following shall be regarded as a flagrant offender: an offender who is pursued by hue and cry; where a person carries stolen goods, or a weapon or other things recognized as being used in connection with a crime; where there is apparent evidence on the body or clothes of a suspect; and in cases where a person attempts to flee when challenged. This study points out some problems of provisions on arrest of flagrant offender and makes some suggestions for the improvement of them. The problems may be summarized as follows. First, the criminal procedure act lacks post control device of arrest of flagrant offender or quasi-flagrant offender. Second, the criminal procedure act regards a quasi-flagrant offender as a flagrant offender whom any person may arrest without a warrant. Finally, there are no restrictions as to a person entitled to perform a arrest of flagrant offender or quasi-flagrant offender. And the suggestions for the improvement may be summarized as follows. First, the criminal procedure act should adopt an ex post facto warrant system or post control devices of arrest of flagrant offender, similar to them of emergency arrest. Second, the provision of a quasi-flagrant offender, Article 211 (2), should be deleted. Finally, there should be some restrictions as to a person entitled to perform a arrest of flagrant offender according to whether or not the performers has observed someone commit a crime.

간접정범의 규정과 그 본질

1허일태(Hoh, Il-Tae) 한국형사법학회 2021 형사법연구 Vol.33 No.3

형법 제34조 제1항에서 타인을 이용하여 구성요건을 간접적으로 현실화시키는 간접정범의 경우 개별 사안에 따라 정범에 준한 법정형으로 혹은 방조범의 법정형으로처벌하려는 것은 형법의 보장기능을 강화시키려는 입법자의 결단이다. 이런 입법자의 결단에 의해서 탄생한 간접정범에 관한 규정은 ‘공범형식’의 방식으로 접근하였고, 이점은 형법 제34조의 제정과정과 당시에 제시되었던 제한적 정범개념, 즉 확장적 공범 개념의 수용을 통한 형법의 보장기능강화라는 이론적 근거에서도 나타나 있다. 이런 점에서 형법 제34조 제1항의 간접정범은 넓은 의미에서 ‘공범형 간접정범’ 혹은 ‘한국적 간접정범’이라고 불러도 무방해 보인다. 왜냐하면 형법 제34조 제1항의 간접정범은 결코 ‘정범’으로 규정되어 있지 않고, ‘공범적 성격’을 지녔기 때문이다. 그러나 우리 형법은 공범종속성 원칙에 기반을 두고 있으며, 간접정범은 범죄 실현을 간접적 방식이지만, 사실상 주도하고 있는 행위주체임을 부인하기 어렵다. 그러기에 타인을 활용하여 범행을 주도하는 간접정범을 ‘순수한 공범형식’이라고 단언하기도 쉽지 않다. 그렇다면 형법상 간접정범 규정은 독자적인 ‘한국적 간접정범’ 내지 ‘공범형 간접정범’이라고 이해하는 것이 옳다고 생각한다. In the case of an indirect offender that uses others to indirectly realize its components in Article 34 (1) of the Criminal Code, it is the legislator s determination to strengthen the criminal law s guarantee function. The rules on indirect offender created by this legislator s determination were approached in an accomplice-type way, and the theoretical basis for strengthening the criminal guarantee function through the acceptance of the concept of extended accomplice. In this regard, it seems safe to call the indirect offender under Article 34 (1) of the Criminal Code an accomplice-type indirect offender or a Korean indirect offender in a broad sense. This is because the ithe indirect offender under Article 34 (1) of the Criminal Code is never defined as a regular criminal, and has an accomplice character. However, our criminal law is based on the principle of accomplice dependency, and it is hard to deny that the indirect offender are actually agents of the act, although they are indirectly used by others in the way of realizing crimes. Therefore, it is not easy to declare that the indirect offender who lead crimes using others are pure accomplices. Then, I think it is right to understand that the indirect offender regulation under the criminal law is an independent Korean the indirect offender or an accomplice the indirect offender.

강간 범죄자의 표적선택요인에 관한 연구- 수형자 조사를 중심으로 -

남재성 한국교정학회 2007 矯正硏究 Vol.- No.35

This study on the rape crime among a lot of criminal types from point of view of victimology to investigate the subjects below: Firstly, being free from precedent studies on the victimology from point of view of the victim, the study examined whether an offender committed rape crime by his rational choice. Secondly, even if an offender did not commit crime by rational choice from point of view of theoretically integrated models, the target was selected because of special factors: Therefore, the study examined selecting and deciding factors of criminal targets from point of view of the offender. On the other hand, actual proof was investigated in accordance with the purposes of the study: Most of rational choices of the offender were not made. Even if an offender did not make rational choice, he did not commit crime without consideration: Therefore, the study investigated considerations from point of view of the offender. An offender committed rape crime at the place that he knew well to have less floating population and to have neither CCTV nor police stations at adjacent areas. And, the offender thought that the victim was not likely to report rape crime without self-defence tools, and he did not have fear of imprisonment after being arrested. Therefore, to prevent rape crime from being victimized, both the offender and the victim should not meet by chance at the place where the offender knew well to have less floating population and to have neither CCTV nor frequent police activities, so that the victim could improve capable guardianship not to be exposed to the offender's target selection. On the other hand, the offender's selection factors gave priority in order of proximity to crime, attractiveness, risk and accessibility, etc to be independent from statistical significance. Therefore, considering the offender, the victim had better avoid such a place, in particular, entrance at nighttime. And, the place was required to improve environment and to expand number and scale of the police stations from point of view of criminal policy.

여성폭력범의 통계적 특성에 관한 연구

백창현(Baek Chang Hyun) 한국범죄심리학회 2005 한국범죄심리연구 Vol.1 No.1

우리나라에서 전체 범죄의 약 16%는 여성에 의해 이루어지고 있다. 특히 전체 여성범죄에서 폭력범죄(폭행, 상해, 협박, 공갈 등)가 차지하는 비율은 약 19%로서 여타 범죄보다 상대적으로 높은 비율을 보이고 있다. 지금까지 범죄에 대한 대부분의 이론 및 연구는 남성을 중심으로 이루어져 왔으며, 특히 여성범죄의 특성에 대한 연구는 사실상 잘 이루어져 오지 않고 있다. 전체 범죄자 중 여성이 차지하는 비율은 지속적인 증가 추세를 보이고 있는 점을 감안하면 여성에 의해 이루어지는 범죄의 특성을 별도로 파악해볼 필요성이 높다. 여기서는 우리나라의 여성범죄 중 특히 폭력범죄에 한정하여 공식적 통계자료를 통해 남성과 대비되는 통계적 특성을 도출해보고자 하였다. 이 연구에서 도출된 우리나라 여성폭력범의 통계적 특성은 다음과 같다. ① 유형: 여성폭력범 중 남성이 차지하는 비율과 대비하여 여성이 차지하는 비율이 가장 높은 유형의 범죄는 약취·유인범죄이다. ② 연령: 남성폭력범은 30대가 가장 많은 비중을 차지하고 있으나, 여성폭력범은 40대의 비중이 가장 높다. ③ 직업: 남성폭력범은 피고용자(일반회사원, 사무원, 기술자, 점원 등)가 가장 많은 비중을 차지하고 있으나, 여성폭력범은 무직자의 비중이 가장 높다. ④ 전과: 남성폭력범은 전과 5범 이상이 가장 많은 비중을 차지하고 있으나, 여성폭력범은 전과가 없는 경우의 비중이 가장 높다. ⑤ 공범관계: 여성폭력범은 남성폭력범보다 공범의 비중이 다소 높게 나타난다. 그리고 남성폭력범의 공범과의 관계는 직장동료인 경우가 가장 많은 비중을 차지하고 있으나, 여성폭력범의 공범과의 관계는 친·인척인 경우가 가장 높다. ⑥ 처분결과: 여성폭력범은 남성폭력범보다 불기소 처분의 비중이 상당히 높게 나타난다. ⑦ 재범기간: 여성폭력범 재범자의 비율은 남성폭력범 재범자의 비율보다 훨씬 낮다. About 16% of the whole crime is committed by female in Korea. Especially the ratio of violent crime(violence, injury, threat, blackmail, etc.) in the whole female crime is about 19%, and this ratio is higher than others. Most of theory and study about crime is with male as the central figure until now, and especially the study on the statistical peculiarity of female offender has not been accomplished in effect. Taking the circumstances into consideration about the lasting increase in the ratio of female crime, grasping the peculiarity of female crime separately is necessary. In this study, I drew the statistical peculiarities of violent female offender that compared with male through official statistical data. The statistical peculiarities of violent female offender in Korea drawn in this study are as follows. ① Type: Compared with the ratio of male"s, the ratio of violent female crime type is highest in the capture and enticement crime. ② Age: Violent male offender in his 30s is given a great deal of weight, but violent female offender in her 40s is given a great deal of weight. ③ Occupation: Violent male offender being in work as employee(general company employee, office clerk, technical expert, shop assistant, etc.) is given a great deal of weight, but violent female offender without a regular occupation is given a great deal of weight. ④ Criminal Record: Violent male offender with over 5 previous convictions is given a great deal of weight, but violent female offender without previous convictions is given a great deal of weight. ⑤ Complicity in a Crime: The ratio of violent female offender"s complicity in a crime is higher than violent male offender"s a little. And the ratio of relationship between violent male offender and his complicity in a crime is given a great deal of weight on friend at work, but between violent female offender and her complicity in a crime is given a great deal of weight on relative. ⑥ Disposition Result: The ratio of violent female offender at disposition not to institute a public action is quite higher than the ratio of violent male offender at disposition not to institute a public action. ⑦ Second Offense Term: The ratio of violent female offender at second offense is far lower than the ratio of violent male offender at second offense.

피교사자의 실행행위의 착오

윤상민(Yoon Sang-Min) 한국법학회 2007 법학연구 Vol.25 No.-

피교사자의 실행행위의 착오는 통일한 구성요건 내에서 발생하는 객체의 착오와 방법의 착오가 있으며, 상이한 구성요건 내에서 발생하는 착오는 과잉실행과 과소설행이 있다. 과잉ㆍ과소실행은 다시 양적ㆍ질적인 것으로 구분된다. 이러한 피교사자의 착오가 발생하였을 때. 착오를 한 피교사자와 교사자에 대한 처벌이 문제된다. 이러한 문제해결의 핵심은 교사 고의의 특정성과 공법의 정범종속성 그리고 착오론이다. 따라서 이러한 이론들의 합리적이고 적정한 적용을 통해 문제를 해결하여야 한다. 피교사자의 객체의 착오는 발생결과에 대해 피교사자에게 고의기수를 인정하는데 아무 문제가 없다. 이 경우 공범의 종속성에 의하면 당연히 교사자도 발생결과에 대해 교사범의 책임을 회피할 수 없다. 다만 이 때 교사자가 피교사자에게 객체의 착오를 일으킬 수 없을 정도의 특정한 교사를 하였음에도 불구하고 피교사자가 객체의 착오를 일으킨 경우에 교사자는 미수와 과실의 상상적 경합범이 될 가능성 이 존재한다. 피교사자가 방법의 착오를 일으킨 경우 피교사자는 고의의 일반원칙에 따라 미수와 과실의 상상적 경합범이 되며, 교사자도 정범종속성에 따라 교사한 범죄의 미수와 피교사자에 의하여 실현의 범죄의 과실의 상상적 경합범이 된다. 피교사자의 초과실행의 경우에는 교사자의 고의와 피교사자의 실행행위가 일치하는 범위 내에서 교사자의 처벌범위가 확정된다. 이는 피교사자의 고의로 양적 초과실행한 경우까지 교사범이 책임질 수 없기 때문이다. 따라서 양적 초과실행의 경우 초과실행된 부분에 대해 교사자는 당연히 책임을 지지 않으며, 질적 초과실행에 대해서도 책임을 지지 않는다. 다만 질적 차이가 본질적이지 않으면 양적 초과와 같이 교사한 범죄에 대한 교사범이 성립한다. 또한 과소실행의 경우에도, 양적 과소실행의 경우 교사자는 피교사자의 실행한 범위 안에서만 책임을 지며, 다만 피교사자의 실행행위 법정형보다 교사한 범죄의 예비ㆍ음모의 형이 더 중한 경우에는 상상적 경합이 인정된다. 질적 과소실행의 경우에는 교사한 범죄의 예비ㆍ음모에 준하여 처벌한다. Mistake of the Instigator about Principal Offender and mistake of Principal Offender of commitment belong to mistake about instigation. Mistake about ability to fulfill Principal Offender's responsibilities is debated about mistake of Instigator to Principal Offender. For example, the case Instigator misunderstand Principal Offender have ability to fulfill one's responsibilities and the opposite case. Solution about it do not effect coming into existence of Instigator according to restrictive subordination rule. But there is much criticism about mistake of Principal Offender of commitment. Mistake of Principal Offender of commitment means the case Instigation content of the Instigator is different with the result by fulfill of Principal Offender. Mistake of Principal Offender can be happened in same crime organization requisite extent, it also can happened in different crime organization requisite extent. Mistake happened in same crime organization requisite is the case Instigation content of Instigator and the result are happened in same crime organization. The Principal Offender’s mistake of the object or mistake of the means. Mistake in different crime organization requisite means the case Principal Offender fulfilled in excess of Instigation content of Instigator and performed too little. Overrun and too little fulfillment are divided to quantitative excess and qualitative excess. When mistake of Principal Offender is happened, there is a problem how can punish the Principal Offender and Instigator. Mistake theory of Independence Principal Offender fact can be used about the punishment of Principal Offender as the solution, however complicated problem is proposed about the punishment of Instigator related to complicity theory. Because crime form or the style of the result about mistake problem of Principal Offender related to complicity theory and mistake theory can be various. Through this thesis, I present reasonable solution plans about mistake solution plans of Principal Offender of commitment after investigating theory and leading case of Korea and foreign country.

최근의 성범죄 대응방안의 헌법적 문제점

박경철(Park Gyung-Chul) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2011 江原法學 Vol.33 No.-

The purpose of this article is to make a scrutiny into the constitutionality of the registration system and the notification system of the convicted sex offender in Korea. Korea has had not only the registration of the convicted sex offender, but also the public notification on the internet and the community notification per post of the convicted sex offender by the revision of the Act on The Protection of Children and Juvenile from Sexual Abuse(APCJSA) and establishment of Act on The Punishment of Sexual Crimes(APSC) in the year 2009 and 2010. I believe, that the convicted sex offender registration system, that the court sentences the sex offender to provide his personal information for the Minister of Women and Family Affairs or the Minister of Justice, ist not unconstitutional. Because the convicted sex offender registration system is to keep watch on the sex offender's movement with ease, in order to prevent sexual offences and registration of personal information of the sex offender is not an excessive means for this purpose. But I think, that the convicted sex offender public notification on the internet and the convicted sex offender community notification per post ist not constitutional. The government discloses the registered personal information of the sex offender throughout the country on the internet and this information is to be accessible through the internet to the public, and what was worse, the government provides the neighbors of the sex offender with his registered personal information, including the detailed address and photo, is an excessive means for the purpose of preventing the sexual offences. And I believe, the public notification system and the community notification system in force have the penal nature, shaming punishments, so both the Acts violate the constitutional prohibition on the Double Jeopardy Clause. Besides I believe, Article 3 Paragraph (2) and (4) of supplementary provision of the APCJSA violates the constitutional prohibition on Ex Post Facto Clause. The approaches to the sex offence must be constitutional. We must be alert to the penal populsim.

부작위 행위자들 사이에서 정범과 공범의 구별

안정빈(Ahn, Jeong-Bin) 한국형사법학회 2019 형사법연구 Vol.31 No.2

부작위라는 개념 혹은 의무라는 개념은 눈에 보이지 않는 개념이다. 부작위 정범과 공범의 구별에서 전형적․일반적 유형은 작위정범에 부작위로 가담하는 것이지만 이 분류기준을 부작위 상호간 가담시에 그대로 적용할 수는 없으므로 별도기준을 제시할 수 있어야 한다. 부작위범죄든 작위범죄든 결과적으로 응보의 형태로 형벌이 실행된다는 점에서는 동일하지만 그 목적이 응징에 있어서는 안 될 것이다. 사회 및사회구성원 나아가서는 유죄판결을 받은 범죄자들의 인권까지도 보호하기 위한 차원에 형법의 목적이 있다. 부작위범에 있어서 정범과 공범을 구별하는 이유는 어떻게 해서든 형이 무거운 쪽으로 치우치지 않게 해주기 위함이다. 작위가 아님에도 불구하고 이를 처벌하려 한다면 처벌요건을 엄격하게 할 필요가 있으며 부작위정범으로 의율될 상황들도 가벌성을 낮춰주기 위해서 부작위방조로 될 수 있는지 판단해보 아야 한다. In the aspect of the Omission, often the most typical and common type of distinction between the principal offender and the accomplice is the type that the accomplices take part in the situation which the principal offender is already acting. It is not possible to apply this classification criterion of active offense to the circumstance of omission, as it is when the offense is taken as an omission. The possibility of distinction between the principal offender and accomplice is very important in legal practice and also very important in the field of criminal legal theory. Until now, there have been few dissertations or other criminal law literatures. Because a few scholars and lawyers were researching on the omission and the distinction between the principal offender and the accomplice. We have to clarify the ground of punishing the crimes by omission, if the grounds for penalties for offenders are unclear, we should reduce the punishment for offenders. About this subject, there is not yet a lot of literatures in Germany or Japan, either. Although there have been many studies on the distinction between the principal offender and the accomplice in the active offense, the study on the distinction between the principal offender and the accomplice in the case of the omission has not been very long. And furthermore, there is also little data. It is probably because omission is invisible. However, in reality, omission is being punished by laws. Few countries do not punish omission. In this dissertation, the main themes and analyses are the distinction between the principal offender and the accomplice and the possibility of the establishment of the joint principal offenders. In the meanwhile, I deal with the duty offender theory - not the dominated committed theory - with the theory of the omission and concentrated to analyze the relation between the duty offender and the omission. In conclusion, I suggest the theory of the intensity of the duty as the main criteria of the distinction between the principal offender and the accomplice, when the cases are among the omissions.

현행범인 체포 및 임의제출물 압수와 관련한 대법원의 태도에 대한 연구 - 대법원 2016. 2. 18. 선고 2015도13726 판결 -

이순옥 중앙법학회 2016 中央法學 Vol.18 No.4

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. 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.