수사지휘권의 헌법적 근거 및 한계에 관한 연구
The Constitutional Basis and Limits upon Prosecutor's Competence of Criminal Investigation
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In Korea, the constitutional exclusive warrant's request right is invested to the prosecution due to a historical reason. By the way, the prosecution insist that the prosecutor's competence of criminal investigation in the criminal procedure law is based on the constitutional right. But this assertion has not validity on following grounds. Firstly, clause 3, article 13 of the Korean Constitution only states the warrant's request right and not enact about the criminal investigation. Secondly, the historical aim of this constitutional right is that human rights was protected from indiscreet warrant's abuses of many investigative agencies. Therefore the competence of criminal investigation has nothing to do with the constitutional right. Thirdly, according to comparative legal interpretations, there are no countries to state the warrant's request right in Constitution, such as US, EU, UK, France, Japan. Hence this right is not a constitutional matter but a legal matter. In conclusion, the prosecutor's competence of criminal investigation is not base on the constitutional right. In addition, the competence is limited to the balance of powers and the due process of law, therefore active and expansive investigation directions of prosecutor are not permitted.
Abstract
In Korea, the constitutional exclusive warrant's request right is invested to the prosecution due to a historical reason. By the way, the prosecution insist that the prosecutor's competence of criminal investigation in the criminal procedure law is based on the constitutional right. But this assertion has not validity on following grounds. Firstly, clause 3, article 13 of the Korean Constitution only states the warrant's request right and not enact about the criminal investigation. Secondly, the historical aim of this constitutional right is that human rights was protected from indiscreet warrant's abuses of many investigative agencies. Therefore the competence of criminal investigation has nothing to do with the constitutional right. Thirdly, according to comparative legal interpretations, there are no countries to state the warrant's request right in Constitution, such as US, EU, UK, France, Japan. Hence this right is not a constitutional matter but a legal matter. In conclusion, the prosecutor's competence of criminal investigation is not base on the constitutional right. In addition, the competence is limited to the balance of powers and the due process of law, therefore active and expansive investigation directions of prosecutor are not permitted.
참고문헌 (26)
- 검찰개혁, 시민들이 직접 나서야만 하는가, , 2011
- 김윤상, "수사지휘권과 인권보장", 형사정책, 15(1), pp.16~ (2003)
- 법무연수원, "수사지휘 론", pp.11~ (2003)
- 장승두, "형사소송법요강", pp.12~ (1950), 청구문화사
- 신동운, "한국검찰의 연혁에 관한 소고", 검찰, (100), pp.48~ (1990)
- 김병화, "한국사법사(중세편)", pp.47~ (1982), 일조각
- 都冕會, "1894-1905년간 형사재판제도 연구", 박사, 국사학과, pp.1998
- 박병호, "법치주 의 실현에의 역사적 교훈", 법제연구, (창간), pp.17~ (1991)
- 한인섭, "권위주의 형사법을 넘어서", pp.23~ (2000), 동성사
- "1924년 조선형사령 제12조", ~
- 신동운, "수 사지휘권의 귀속에 관한 연혁적 고찰 (Ⅰ)-초기 법규정의 정비를 중심으로", 서울대학교 법학, 42(1), pp.202~ (2001), 서울대학교 법학연구소
- 신동운, "영장실질심사제도의 실시 와 영장주의의 새로운 전개 -영장제도에 대한 연혁적 고찰을 중심으로", 새로운인신구속제도 연구, pp.32~ (1996)
- 문홍주, "역사와 헌법시리즈 제2회 나와 대한민국 헌법", 헌법학연구, 8(1), pp.53~72 (2002), 한국헌법학회
- 바람직한 수사권조정 방안, "대검찰청 수사정책기획단", 26~ (2005)
- 사법연수원, "검찰실무 Ⅰ", pp.48~ (1998)
- 이진국, "수사권독립 논의에 관한 검토", 형사정책연구, 14(2), pp.5~202 (2003), 한국형사정책연구원
- 결과보고서(요약본), "헌법연구자문위원회", 국회, 33~ (2009)
- 천진호, "영장청구권의 귀속 주체에 관한 검토", 법학논고, (26), pp.331~346 (2007), 법학연구원
- 문홍주, "역사와 헌법시리즈 제2회 나와 대한민국 헌법", 헌법학연구, 8(1), pp.53~72 (2002), 한국헌법학회
- "헌재 1997.03.27, 96헌바28, 판례집 제9권 1집", 321~ (1997)
- "헌재 1997.03.27, 96헌바28, 판례집 제9권 1집", 320~ (1997)
- "헌재 1997.03.27, 96헌바28, 판례집 제9권 1집", 321~322 (1997)
- 법무부, "독일형사소송법", pp.112~ (1998)
- 조국, "검사의 수사지휘권 행사의 범위와 한계, In 한국 형사법학의 이론과 실천", 박영사
- 검경 수사권 조정과정에서 본 국민의 인권보장과 사회정의 실현 방안, "김득환", 48~ (2011)
- "헌재 1997.03.27, 96헌바28, 판례집 제9권 1집", 320~ (1997)