본문 바로가기
KERD
논문

객관의무의 구체화와 검사의 권한통제

The materialization of objective responsibility & control of prosecutors’ power

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The prosecutor is the sovereign institution with strong power in criminal procedure. Prosecutors have right of investigation, indictment and enforcement of trial in criminal procedure. Especially, prosecutor’s right of investigation and indictment is the strong power to restrict citizen’s freedom in the viewpoint of punishing power of the sovereignty, in parallel with the jurisdictional right of the Court. However recently, such powers of prosecutor are regarded as the subject to be controlled. Furthermore, it is also a problem that there are no proper alternatives available to control and contain the powers of prosecutors. Existing alternatives are not suitable to become reasonable measures due to the concern that another powered institution may be created thereby. Therefore, it is regarded that the measures to control prosecutor’s powers need to be pursued internally within the Public Prosecutors’ Office. In other words, it would be meaningful to introduce stronger responsibilities and judicial control on breach thereof as the internal control measure, rather than by check and balance by other institution as external control. In this perspective, this study intends to focus on objective responsibility of prosecutors. Prosecutors are subject to objective responsibility while having strong power in their status as representatives of public interest as well as the advocate of human right. If objective responsibility can control prosecutors’ powers, this responsibility may be regarded as the internal control measure sufficiently workable. The problem with this alternative is that the concept on objectivity responsibility of prosecutor is not clearly established in legal procedure law, hence the scope thereof is only limitedly acknowledged and judicial control is in weak situation on breach thereof. Henceforth this study clarifies the concept of objective responsibility, expands and strengthens the scope of acknowledgement thereof, and provide the sanctions on breach thereof, so that objective responsibility of prosecutor is confirmed as eligible to become the internal control measure of prosecutors’ powers.

Abstract

The prosecutor is the sovereign institution with strong power in criminal procedure. Prosecutors have right of investigation, indictment and enforcement of trial in criminal procedure. Especially, prosecutor’s right of investigation and indictment is the strong power to restrict citizen’s freedom in the viewpoint of punishing power of the sovereignty, in parallel with the jurisdictional right of the Court. However recently, such powers of prosecutor are regarded as the subject to be controlled. Furthermore, it is also a problem that there are no proper alternatives available to control and contain the powers of prosecutors. Existing alternatives are not suitable to become reasonable measures due to the concern that another powered institution may be created thereby. Therefore, it is regarded that the measures to control prosecutor’s powers need to be pursued internally within the Public Prosecutors’ Office. In other words, it would be meaningful to introduce stronger responsibilities and judicial control on breach thereof as the internal control measure, rather than by check and balance by other institution as external control. In this perspective, this study intends to focus on objective responsibility of prosecutors. Prosecutors are subject to objective responsibility while having strong power in their status as representatives of public interest as well as the advocate of human right. If objective responsibility can control prosecutors’ powers, this responsibility may be regarded as the internal control measure sufficiently workable. The problem with this alternative is that the concept on objectivity responsibility of prosecutor is not clearly established in legal procedure law, hence the scope thereof is only limitedly acknowledged and judicial control is in weak situation on breach thereof. Henceforth this study clarifies the concept of objective responsibility, expands and strengthens the scope of acknowledgement thereof, and provide the sanctions on breach thereof, so that objective responsibility of prosecutor is confirmed as eligible to become the internal control measure of prosecutors’ powers.

참고문헌 (19)

  1. 강구진, "형사소송법원론" (1982), 학연사
  2. 권오걸, "스마트 형사소송법" (2012), 형설출판사
  3. 김기두, "형사소송법" (1987), 박영사
  4. 배종대, "신형사소송법 제3판" (2011), 홍문사
  5. 백형구, "형사소송법" (1998), 한국사법행정학회
  6. 신현주, "형사소송법" (2002), 박영사
  7. 심희기, "검사의 공익적 지위와 객관의무", 고시연구 (2003)
  8. 이영란, "한국형사소송법" (2007), 숙명여자대학교출판국
  9. 이완규, "검사의 지위와 객관의무-대법원 2002. 2. 22, 2001다23447-", 저스티스, (73) (2003)
  10. 이완규, "형사사법권력의 통제와 소송구조론의 연관성", 법조, 54(8), pp.19~57 (2005), 법조협회
  11. 이재상, "신형사소송법" (2012), 박영사
  12. 임동규, "형사소송법" (2012), 법문사
  13. 정영석, "형사소송법" (1994), 법문사
  14. 조광훈, "수사기관의 객관의무에 관한 연구", 법조, 54(5), pp.257~292 (2005), 법조협회
  15. 차용석, "형사소송법" (2004), 세영사
  16. 한상훈, "형사소송의 구조와 검사, 피고인의 지위 - 당사자주의와 증거개시제도를 중심으로 -", 형사법연구, 21(4), pp.397~428 (2009), 한국형사법학회
  17. 渥美東洋, "全訂刑事訴訟法(第2版)" (2009), 有斐閣
  18. 渡辺直行, "刑事訴訟法" (2010), 成文堂
  19. 田宮裕, "刑事訴訟法" (1996), 有斐閣

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)