강제채뇨의 허용성에 관한 고찰

The korean Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6219 Decided June 12, 2018 is the first judgment that revealed the Supreme Court's position on forced catherterization by police officers. Before the ruling, discussions on whether to allow compulsory catherterization or not, allowable legal conditions. types of warrants to be applied, and procedures have been largely theoretical. The above Decision revealed several important jurisdictions related to compulsory catherterization, including (1) permissibility of forced catherterization, (2) warrants requirement, and (3) availability of legal force for catherterization. This paper focuses on the 'permissibility of forced catherterization by police officer' and critically examines the judgment of the korean Supreme Court. First, we examined whether forced catherterization for investigation purposes is allowed in Germany and the United States. Germany has established legal grounds for compulsory catherterization as 'andere körperliche Eingriffe’(other intrusions into the human body) under Article 81a of the german Criminal Procedure Act amended in 1933, but Germany's legitimate position denies the permissibility of forced catherterization on the basis of the body's safety and human dignity. It is also hard to find cases in Germany where the forced urination is accepted. The US case also takes a skeptical position on forced catherterization for investigation purposes. The forced catherterization by police is a method of investigation that violates the freedom of the body, human dignity and morality of the suspect. It is beyond the principle of proportionality and should not be allowed as a compulsory investigation.