경찰권과 검찰권의 조정을 통한 ‘국가수사청’ 설치에 대한 시론

Abstract

The key point of National Investigation Administration is to operate investigation and prosecution independently, establish a professional and independent national investigation administration having investigation authority, and to include prosecutor and judicial police in the same agency where prosecutor commands investigation and judicial police takes charge of investigation. In other words, prosecutor and judicial police perform their duties together with each other in an investigation agency where prosecutor commands investigation and judicial police takes charge of investigation. This cannot be said to add an investigation administration, setting aside from the current investigation agency, but to integrate the two investigation agencies divided into prosecution and judicial police with a single one by separating it from prosecutor's office or police administration. Such as this, National Investigation Agency where investigation prosecutor and judicial police worked together to have entire investigation authority was newly built, while prosecutor's office performs prosecution powers and police administration solely performs administrative police actions such as crime prevention and maintenance of order. National Investigation Administration has its objective to maximize efficiency of national crime judicial action by mediating the authorities of police, prosecution and organization in a rational manner and separating what needs to be separated and integrating what needs to be integrated. This is one of the starkest characteristics that is different from the existing special investigation organization. As the basic structure of criminal justice have led to a change from inquisitorial system to accusatorial system, legal action and judgment authorities are separated, and it is judged valid in the same context that investigation and prosecution authorities monopolized by the prosecution regarding police judicial system need to be separated. The awareness of the problem that once a prosecutor rules a criminal case, the case cannot but be applied favorably to the prosecutor can be true to the relations between investigation and prosecution. It is not improper that whether needs to be prosecuted shall be determined by the outcome of investigation in an objective and neutral position. If an agency having investigation and prosecution authorities at the same time makes the decision of the related prosecution, in advance, there could not but be the difference in content and focus of investigation in accordance with it. In order to mediate the authority that the current prosecution has, in a rational manner, not distributing partially small authorities but make the fundamental structure reform to separate investigation from prosecution is required. The research study is to analyze the problems with excessive authority and the position as quasi-judicial agency in relation to fairness of prosecution judgement, and the problems with prosecution investigation and indictment caused by double investigation by the police and prosecutor's office mainly focusing on admissibility of evidence of protocol of examination of a suspect, and the ones with trust of people about police investigation, dual command chain, and police investigation mainly focusing on the side effect caused by sending overall cases to prosecutor's office. Subsequently, the study is to place the emphasis on the need to reinforce trial-central system, disperse power by separating investigation from prosecution, and to introduce integrated investigation organization based on establishing equal co-operative relations between prosecution and police to finish the discussion by pursuing a concrete method for separating administrative police from judicial police; investigation examination from trial examination and abolishing prosecution investigation officer system and the interrogation procedure of suspect at the police level.