RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI우수등재

      「경찰관직무집행법」상 보호조치의 헌법상 정당화 근거와 입법적 개선 방향 = Constitutional justification of protective measures in The Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers and direction of legislative improvement

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Protective measures are an means that restrict the physical freedom of the subject as a system that temporarily protects those with delirium, intoxicants, and suicide attempters at the police station. Accordingly, a review of constitutional justification is an important issue. The constitutional justification of protective measures in case of self-endangerment and in case where there is a risk of violation of a legally protected interest of others is different. However, there is a lack of systematic coherence as the current regulations stipulate them in parallel.
      The constitutional justification of protective measures taken when there is a risk of infringing on the legal interests of others is the state’s duty to protect basic rights based on Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. On the other hand, the justification of protective measures for self-endangerment can be derived from consideration of right of self-determination and paternalism. The state's paternalistic intervention in self-endangerment is possible when the subject is not able to properly exercise the right of self-determination due to lack of free will. Thus, the protective measures against self-endangerment behavior should be based on the subject’s loss of free will. This can be applied to the justification of protective measures for suicide attempters also. Suicide attempts that police officers encounter by chance are usually appeal-type of suicide attempts. There is no way to confirm the serious and final intention, and thus, protective measures against suicide attempters can be justified.
      In interpreting the current regulations, protective measures for self-endangerment should be a key criterion for determining whether the subject has lost the ability to act autonomously. On the other hand, whether a person requiring protective measure loses normal judgment ability should not be considered for the protective measures for preventing infringement of the legal interests of others. This is because the police should intervene if there is a risk of infringing on the legal interests of others, even if one is not a mentally deranged or intoxicated person. However, legislative improvement is needed since the current regulation does not distinguish between self-endangerment and the risk of violation of a legally protected interest of others.
      For the direction of legislative improvement, it is appropriate to distinguish cases where there is a risk of self-endangerment and violation of a legally protected interest by referring to German legislation. The former can be further subdivided into “a state of loss of free decision-making ability,” a “state in need of help” to the extent that a hypothetical and presumptive intention to consent to protective measures can be recognized, or a person attempting suicide. For the latter, defining the case where there is a risk of infringing on the legal interests of others, such as life, body, and property, through criminal acts or violations of order as the subject of protective measures is appropriate.
      번역하기

      Protective measures are an means that restrict the physical freedom of the subject as a system that temporarily protects those with delirium, intoxicants, and suicide attempters at the police station. Accordingly, a review of constitutional justificat...

      Protective measures are an means that restrict the physical freedom of the subject as a system that temporarily protects those with delirium, intoxicants, and suicide attempters at the police station. Accordingly, a review of constitutional justification is an important issue. The constitutional justification of protective measures in case of self-endangerment and in case where there is a risk of violation of a legally protected interest of others is different. However, there is a lack of systematic coherence as the current regulations stipulate them in parallel.
      The constitutional justification of protective measures taken when there is a risk of infringing on the legal interests of others is the state’s duty to protect basic rights based on Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. On the other hand, the justification of protective measures for self-endangerment can be derived from consideration of right of self-determination and paternalism. The state's paternalistic intervention in self-endangerment is possible when the subject is not able to properly exercise the right of self-determination due to lack of free will. Thus, the protective measures against self-endangerment behavior should be based on the subject’s loss of free will. This can be applied to the justification of protective measures for suicide attempters also. Suicide attempts that police officers encounter by chance are usually appeal-type of suicide attempts. There is no way to confirm the serious and final intention, and thus, protective measures against suicide attempters can be justified.
      In interpreting the current regulations, protective measures for self-endangerment should be a key criterion for determining whether the subject has lost the ability to act autonomously. On the other hand, whether a person requiring protective measure loses normal judgment ability should not be considered for the protective measures for preventing infringement of the legal interests of others. This is because the police should intervene if there is a risk of infringing on the legal interests of others, even if one is not a mentally deranged or intoxicated person. However, legislative improvement is needed since the current regulation does not distinguish between self-endangerment and the risk of violation of a legally protected interest of others.
      For the direction of legislative improvement, it is appropriate to distinguish cases where there is a risk of self-endangerment and violation of a legally protected interest by referring to German legislation. The former can be further subdivided into “a state of loss of free decision-making ability,” a “state in need of help” to the extent that a hypothetical and presumptive intention to consent to protective measures can be recognized, or a person attempting suicide. For the latter, defining the case where there is a risk of infringing on the legal interests of others, such as life, body, and property, through criminal acts or violations of order as the subject of protective measures is appropriate.

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼