지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2021.11
- 수록면
- 89 - 112 (24page)
- DOI
- 10.35227/HYLR.2021.11.32.4.89
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Article 4, paragraph 1 of the law of enforcement by policy officer regulates that, subject to the reasonable judgment on a suspicious behavior or other surrounding circumstances, if a police officer finds a person who apparently has substantial reasons deemed necessary for an emergency aid as well as corresponding to either of and at the same time in a worry of causing a hazard to the life/body/properties of himself or the others due to being delirious or drunken, or a person attempting suicide, or a missing child, or a patient, or an injured etc (hereinafter referred to as “protective action target”), he shall take appropriate actions such as requesting an emergency aid to a health and medical institute or a public aid association or protecting the protective action target in a police office.
However, There are some issues in respect with the actual protective actions taken by a police officer under the existing law of enforcement by police officer.
First, the scope of relief objects under Article 4, First, the scope of relief objects under Article 4, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 2 of the existing law of enforcement by police officer seems too narrow. In other words, the scope of “missing child” is limited to “a lost child”.
Second, even though a police officer takes an emergency aid or a protective action in the actual site, it may correspond to an illegal protective action if it is in breach of the principle of the police officer"s passive purposes.
Third, if a police officer does not take any protective actions for a drunken or delirious person, their lives may in danger, or if he leaves unattended or negligent for a missing child, a patient, or an injured who are unable to be protected by any guidances such as parents, a spouse, siblings etc, the police officer may be determined as illegal and responsible for the unlawful actions due to his nonperformance.
Forth, that law prescribes that a police officer shall take his protective action in consideration of the event that a patient, an injured etc rejects an emergency aid as well as in consideration of the availability of a neighboring doctor, and the consciousness status of the patient and the injured etc. However, it may not be righteous to determine whether they are conscious and normally discern by the arbitrary judgement of the police officer.
Fifth, the protective action targets may not be determined uniformly and with the time limit. There may be cases difficult to determine comprehensively and respectively in consideration of characteristics/contents and degrees of the detailed protective measurement, and the timing to find objectively, protective measures and authorities by a police officer, and the rescuee or the extent required of the protective measurement for the protege etc.
Sixth, It is not allowed and illegal in nature to temporarily protect the rescuee in a jail or at the standby room for a suspect or to put a drunken or a delirious person in a place other than a protection room or the stabilization room. In addition, it shall be corresponding to the illegal seizure in practice to protect a person other than a protective action target such as a minor injured, a drunken or delirious person, a patient, and a suspect, and, in particular, a person requiring protection in a protective room of a police office.
As improvement measures to resolve such problems regarding the protective actions by the policy officer, the followings may be suggested:
First, to expand the scope of the protective action targets under the law of enforcement by police officer. That is, it may be desirable to expand the scope of the “missing child” to the kidnapped, the abandoned child, the mentally disabled, the lost child etc.
Second, to be based on the objective determination of a police officer following “reasonable judgement” or “substantial trust” etc in order for him to take the protective actions.
Third, to grant the responsibilities of intention or negligence for the official performances by the governmental office, if his negligence of performance or the authority of protective actions are deemed very unreasonable in term of his authority performance of he protective actions.
Forth, when a police officer takes emergency aids for a patient and an injured etc, he shall use the substantially reasonable judgment not based on his arbitrary judgment but based on the ordinary police officer"s judgment, and the determination of emergency shall be based on the emergency or urgency of the status of the protective measure target, and the aids shall be based on the events that the lives, bodies and properties of himself or the others are in a risky status etc.
Fifth, the protective measures by the police officer shall be allowed to the minimum extent within the scope of applicable laws and regulations for its purpose, requirements, targets, procedures and methods etc.
Sixth, the police officer shall do his best in order to prevent any infringement on human rights in advance, which may be caused by such protective actions.
Seventh, to demand the installation of the protective room for such protection targets as the protective measure in a police office is to temporarily imprison a person and restrict his personal freedom.
However, There are some issues in respect with the actual protective actions taken by a police officer under the existing law of enforcement by police officer.
First, the scope of relief objects under Article 4, First, the scope of relief objects under Article 4, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 2 of the existing law of enforcement by police officer seems too narrow. In other words, the scope of “missing child” is limited to “a lost child”.
Second, even though a police officer takes an emergency aid or a protective action in the actual site, it may correspond to an illegal protective action if it is in breach of the principle of the police officer"s passive purposes.
Third, if a police officer does not take any protective actions for a drunken or delirious person, their lives may in danger, or if he leaves unattended or negligent for a missing child, a patient, or an injured who are unable to be protected by any guidances such as parents, a spouse, siblings etc, the police officer may be determined as illegal and responsible for the unlawful actions due to his nonperformance.
Forth, that law prescribes that a police officer shall take his protective action in consideration of the event that a patient, an injured etc rejects an emergency aid as well as in consideration of the availability of a neighboring doctor, and the consciousness status of the patient and the injured etc. However, it may not be righteous to determine whether they are conscious and normally discern by the arbitrary judgement of the police officer.
Fifth, the protective action targets may not be determined uniformly and with the time limit. There may be cases difficult to determine comprehensively and respectively in consideration of characteristics/contents and degrees of the detailed protective measurement, and the timing to find objectively, protective measures and authorities by a police officer, and the rescuee or the extent required of the protective measurement for the protege etc.
Sixth, It is not allowed and illegal in nature to temporarily protect the rescuee in a jail or at the standby room for a suspect or to put a drunken or a delirious person in a place other than a protection room or the stabilization room. In addition, it shall be corresponding to the illegal seizure in practice to protect a person other than a protective action target such as a minor injured, a drunken or delirious person, a patient, and a suspect, and, in particular, a person requiring protection in a protective room of a police office.
As improvement measures to resolve such problems regarding the protective actions by the policy officer, the followings may be suggested:
First, to expand the scope of the protective action targets under the law of enforcement by police officer. That is, it may be desirable to expand the scope of the “missing child” to the kidnapped, the abandoned child, the mentally disabled, the lost child etc.
Second, to be based on the objective determination of a police officer following “reasonable judgement” or “substantial trust” etc in order for him to take the protective actions.
Third, to grant the responsibilities of intention or negligence for the official performances by the governmental office, if his negligence of performance or the authority of protective actions are deemed very unreasonable in term of his authority performance of he protective actions.
Forth, when a police officer takes emergency aids for a patient and an injured etc, he shall use the substantially reasonable judgment not based on his arbitrary judgment but based on the ordinary police officer"s judgment, and the determination of emergency shall be based on the emergency or urgency of the status of the protective measure target, and the aids shall be based on the events that the lives, bodies and properties of himself or the others are in a risky status etc.
Fifth, the protective measures by the police officer shall be allowed to the minimum extent within the scope of applicable laws and regulations for its purpose, requirements, targets, procedures and methods etc.
Sixth, the police officer shall do his best in order to prevent any infringement on human rights in advance, which may be caused by such protective actions.
Seventh, to demand the installation of the protective room for such protection targets as the protective measure in a police office is to temporarily imprison a person and restrict his personal freedom.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 보호조치의 법적 고찰
Ⅲ. 경직법상 보호조치의 문제점과 개선방안
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (39)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
한국 지역경찰에 있어서 경찰의 주민신뢰가 지역사회경찰활동 수용도에 미치는 영향
동북아시아문화학회 국제학술대회 발표자료집
2018 .10
-
경찰관 인권의식에 대한 영향요인
치안정책연구
2018 .01
-
공인의 초상권 보호 - 촬영 당하는 경찰 초상권 중심으로
법학연구
2022 .03
-
위험 방지를 위한 경찰관의 가택 출입권에 관한 정당성과 입법적 개선 방안
치안정책연구
2019 .01
-
사회적 지지와 자아효능감이 경찰관의 적극적 경찰활동 태도에 미치는 영향
지방정부연구
2021 .08
-
이원화 자치경찰제도에 대한 경찰공무원 태도 연구
한국경찰학회보
2024 .04
-
중국 공안교육제도에 관한 연구-중앙･지방 공안대학의 혁신시도를 중심으로-
경찰학논총
2016 .01
-
The Misconduct of Police Officials in the U. S. -Typologies, Its Characteristics and Remedy-
한국민간경비학회보
2015 .01
-
경찰관의 현장 출입 여부 판단의 문제점과 개선방안 - 대법원 2019.7.4. 선고 2019도4821 판결을 중심으로 -
한국치안행정논집
2020 .01
-
경찰손실보상제도의 개선방안
법학연구
2017 .11
-
기동경찰관의 폭력피해경험이 이직의도에 미치는 영향: 사회적지지의 조절효과를 중심으로
한국공안행정학회보
2023 .03
-
「경찰관직무집행법」상 보호조치의 헌법상 정당화 근거와 입법적 개선 방향
법조
2022 .04
-
한국 지역경찰의 지역사회경찰활동에 대한 인식분석
동북아시아문화학회 국제학술대회 발표자료집
2017 .10
-
일선경찰관의 문제행위 유발요인에관한 연구-자기 통제력 구성요인을 중심으로-
경찰학논총
2018 .01
-
경찰관에 대한 수어(手語) 교육훈련 특성이 청각 장애인의 학습효과 전이에 미치는 영향- 장애인식과 친밀감의 매개효과를 중심으로 -
한국경찰연구
2020 .01
-
여성경찰관의 효능감이 직무태도에 미치는 영향
한국경찰학회보
2015 .01
-
자치경찰제 도입모델에 관한 검토- 문재인 정부 하에서의 논의를 중심으로 -
치안정책연구
2018 .01
-
위험 방지를 위한 출입- 경찰관 직무집행법 제7조의 현황과 개정 방향에 대한 고찰 -
홍익법학
2019 .01
-
경찰관 대상 공무집행방해죄에 관한 판례의 경향과 문제점
경찰법연구
2022 .10
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2022-360-000056776