대상판결은 피고인이 마약을 투약하였다는 제보를 받은 경찰관이 피고인의 주거지에 들어가 긴급체포한 사안에서 체포 당시 범죄혐의의 상당성이 인정된다고 하더라도 체포의 긴급성이 인정되지 않아 긴급체포가 위법하다고 판시하였다. 긴급체포는 ① 사형ㆍ무기 또는 장기 3년 이상의 징역이나 금고에 해당하는 범죄(범죄의 중대성)를, ② 범하였다고 의심할 만한 상당한 이유가 있고(범죄혐의의 상당성), ③ 증거를 인멸할 염려가 있거나 도망하거나 도망할 우려가 있고(체포의 필요성), ④ 긴급을 요하여 체포영장을 받을 시간적 여유가 없어야 한다(체포의 긴급성). 이러한 긴급체포의 요건은 체포 당시의 상황을 기초로 판단하여야 하고, 이에 관한 수사기관의 판단에는 상당한 재량이 있으므로 그 판단이 경험칙에 비추어 현저히 합리성을 잃은 경우에 한하여 위법하게 된다는 판단기준이 적용된다. 경찰관이 피고인을 긴급체포하기 위하여 압수ㆍ수색영장이 없이 피고인의 집문을 강제로 열고 들어가 피고인을 수색하였기에 실제 긴급체포를 한 시점이 아니라 피고인의 집 문을 열고 들어간 시점을 체포 당시로 보아야 한다. 대상판결에서도 ‘범죄의 중대성’과 ‘범죄혐의의 상당성’은 인정하고 있다. 그리고 ① 경찰관이 제보 내용을 알아보기 위하여 피고인의 주거지에 가서 사진으로 동일인 여부를 확인하였고, ② 피고인은 처음에는 경찰관이 신분을 밝히지 않고 접촉사고가 났으니 나오라는 말에 거부하였고, ③ 다음으로 경찰관임을 밝히고 만나자고 하였으나 거짓말을 하였고, ④ 계속해서 경찰관이 다시 전화를 하였으나 더 이상 전화를 받지 않았으며, ⑤ 이에 경찰관이 피고인의 집 문을 두드렸으나 피고인이 아무런 인기척을 내지 않으면서 문을 열어주지도 않았던 점 등을 종합하면 경찰관의 입장에서 ‘범죄혐의의 상당성’을 인정할 수 있다. 또한 피고인이 마약투약 혐의로 실형을 선고받아 불과 2개월여 전에 출소한 상황에서 위와 같이 피고인이 경찰관에게 집에서 먼 곳에 있다며 거짓말을 하였을 뿐만 아니라 이후에는 전화를 받는 것조차 거부하고 집 문을 열어주지도 않았기에 경찰관의 입장에서는 피고인이 마약수사를 받게 된다는 인식을 하고 도주할 염려가 상당하다고 볼 수밖에 없으며, 피고인이 마약을 투약한 시점을 경찰관이 정확히 파악할 수 없는 상황에서 피고인의 신체에서 곧 증거가 소멸될 우려까지 할 수밖에 없기에 ‘체포의 긴급성’도 인정할 수 있다. 위와 같은 긴급체포의 요건에 대한 수사기관의 판단에 현저히 합리성이 잃지 않았다고 보여지므로 대상판결의 판시와는 달리 긴급체포는 위법하지 않다고 하겠다.

In the case that a police officer, who was informed that the defendant had taken drugs, entered the defendant’s residence and arrested the defendant without warrant, even if the reasonableness of criminal charges is recognized at the time of arrest, the court ruling showed that the emergency arrest was illegal because urgency of arrest was not recognized. The requirements for emergency arrest are as follows ; ① Crime equivalent to capital punishmentㆍlife imprisonment or prison labor or imprisonment for more than three(3) years(seriousness of crime), ② There is a resonable and valid reason to suspect that a person has committed a crime (reasonableness of criminal charges), ③ There is a concern that the evidence may have been destroyed, or that there is a risk of escaping or has been concerned about escaping (necessity of arrest), and ④ There must be no time to get an arrest warrant required for an emergency(urgency of arrest). The requirements for such an emergency arrest should be based on the circumstances at the time of the arrest, and there is considerable discretion in the judgment of the investigating authority in connection with the above requirements, so that only if the judgment considerably loses a rationality in the light of the principle of experience, the criterion that it becomes illegal is applied. The police officer forced the defendant to open the door of the defendant’s house, entered the house and searched the defendant without having a confiscationㆍsearch warrant in order to arrest the defendant without the warrant, so, it’s not a time made the actual emergency arrest, the time when the police officer opened the door of the defendant’s house and entered the house must be seen as the time of arrest. The court ruling also recognizes “seriousness of crime” and “reasonableness of criminal charges”. And considering the following points ; ① In order to find out the information that the police officer was informed, the police officer went to the defendant’s residence and identified that the defendant was the same person after comparing with the photo, ② At first, the defendant refused that the police officer asked the defendant to come out because the police officer, who did not disclose his identity, caused a minor collision, ③ Next, the police officer revealed that he was a police officer, and asked him to meet, but the defendant lied to the police officer, ④ The police officer continued to call the defendant, but the defendant no longer received the call, ⑤ So the police officer knocked on the defendant’s door, but the defendant did not open the door without giving any sign of somebody there, from the standpoint of the police officer, the “reasonableness of criminal charges” can be recognized. In addition, under the circumstances that he was released from prison just two months ago after the defendant was sentenced to prison on a charge of drugs, as mentioned above, not only did the defendant tell the police officer that he was far away from home, but later the defendant refused to answer the phone and did not open the door of the house, so the police officer can not help thinking and worrying about that the defendant would escape, recognizing that the defendant would be investigated for drugs. Under the circumstances that the police officer can not know exactly when the defendant took drugs. the ‘urgency of arrest’ can be also recognized because the police officer is concerned that the evidence will soon disappear from the defendant’s body. Since the investigation agency’s judgment on the requirements of the above-mentioned emergency arrest seems to have not lost a considerable rationality, contrary to the court ruling, the emergency arrest will not be illegal.