사법경찰관에 대한 수사지휘검사의 범위에 관한 연구
A Study on the Boundaries of Prosecutors to Command Judicial Police Officers in Crime Investigation
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The public prosecutor's authority to direct judicial police officers is prescribed in the article 196, clause 1 of the Criminal Procedure. According to the article 53 of Public Prosecutor's Office Law, the judicial police officer is obliged to obey the order of the “prosecutor concerned.”Generally, studies on the meaning of those two articles, which defines the basic relationship between police and prosecutor, reached a conclusion that there are two key factors in the articles; “the public prosecutor has the authority to direct judicial police officers in criminal investigation” and “the officers has to comply with prosecutor's orders”Based on the vertical relations, the prosecutor directly commands judicial officers in investigating criminal cases, including ones which may be, or shall be, done by the Office. However, not only scholars but even Police Agency has not raised any objection to the custom. To establish proper relationship between Police and Prosecutors, two studies should proceed the revision of the relevant articles; on the legal relation of the agencies by constructing Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecutor's Office Law in a different point of view, and on the current relation in the field. Changing focus in interpretation of Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecutor's Office Law, from the aspect of authority(the text of “the prosecutor's authority to criminal investigation and direction of judicial officers" in Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecutor's Office Law) to that of obligation(the text of “must investigate criminal cases" in Criminal Procedure), it is possible to construct laws about the relationship different from traditional one. It also is possible to limit the power of prosecutors by redefining "prosecutor with authority to direct judicial officers" and “prosecutor concerned.”The construction of law may differ from standpoints, and in reality, prosecutors have general and unlimited authority over judicial police officers, as is against "check and balance". At least, general authority over police officers should not be allowed. Thus, in the revision of Criminal Procedure led by Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform, it is necessary to limit the power of prosecutors with new provisions, clarifying that only the prosecutor in charge of a certain case has the authority to direct judicial officers engaging the case.
Abstract
The public prosecutor's authority to direct judicial police officers is prescribed in the article 196, clause 1 of the Criminal Procedure. According to the article 53 of Public Prosecutor's Office Law, the judicial police officer is obliged to obey the order of the “prosecutor concerned.”Generally, studies on the meaning of those two articles, which defines the basic relationship between police and prosecutor, reached a conclusion that there are two key factors in the articles; “the public prosecutor has the authority to direct judicial police officers in criminal investigation” and “the officers has to comply with prosecutor's orders”Based on the vertical relations, the prosecutor directly commands judicial officers in investigating criminal cases, including ones which may be, or shall be, done by the Office. However, not only scholars but even Police Agency has not raised any objection to the custom. To establish proper relationship between Police and Prosecutors, two studies should proceed the revision of the relevant articles; on the legal relation of the agencies by constructing Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecutor's Office Law in a different point of view, and on the current relation in the field. Changing focus in interpretation of Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecutor's Office Law, from the aspect of authority(the text of “the prosecutor's authority to criminal investigation and direction of judicial officers" in Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecutor's Office Law) to that of obligation(the text of “must investigate criminal cases" in Criminal Procedure), it is possible to construct laws about the relationship different from traditional one. It also is possible to limit the power of prosecutors by redefining "prosecutor with authority to direct judicial officers" and “prosecutor concerned.”The construction of law may differ from standpoints, and in reality, prosecutors have general and unlimited authority over judicial police officers, as is against "check and balance". At least, general authority over police officers should not be allowed. Thus, in the revision of Criminal Procedure led by Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform, it is necessary to limit the power of prosecutors with new provisions, clarifying that only the prosecutor in charge of a certain case has the authority to direct judicial officers engaging the case.
참고문헌 (54)
- 노명선, "형사소송법" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 심희기, "형사소송법판례(제3판)" (2005), 홍문사
- 문준영, "법원과 검찰의 탄생(사법의 역사로 읽는 대한민국)" (2010), 역사비평사
- 손동권, "형사소송법 개정신판" (2010), 세창출판사
- 정승환, "신형사소송법" (2008), 홍문사
- 신양균, "형사소송법" (2004), 법문사
- 이완규, "검찰제도와 검사의 지휘" (2005), 도서출판 성민기업
- 이은모, "형사소송법" (2010), 박영사
- 이재상, "신형사소송법" (2009), 박영사
- 임동규, "형사소송법" (2008), 법문사
- 정웅석, "검사의 수사지휘에 관한 연구" (2007), 대명출판사
- 지영환, "국가 수사권 입법론" (2006), 진리탐구
- 차용석, "형사소송법" (2008), 21세기사
- 구상진, "수사체제조정논의 재검토", 저스티스, (100), pp.162~215 (2007), 한국법학원
- 김윤상, "수사지휘와 인권보장", 형사정책, 15(1) (2003)
- 김일수, "검경 수사권 조정 자문위원회 활동의 회고와 전망", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.611~638 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 문준영, "한국 검찰제도의 역사적 형성에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학과, pp.2004
- 박기석, "현행 검·경관계의 문제점과 경찰의 책임수사 원리", 비교형사법연구, 5(2-1), pp.9~292 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회
- 박노섭, "검사의 수사지휘권의 한계에 관한 연구 - 장신중경정사건(2009.4.9, 2007도9481) 중심으로", 경찰학연구, 10(2), pp.3~20 (2010), 경찰대학
- 박노섭, "사법경찰관의 수사에 관한 일반근거조항과 검사의 사법적 통제", 비교형사법연구, 7(1), pp.227~246 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
- 박행렬, "피의자 등 호송제도의 문제점 및 개선방안 연구", 치안논총, 26 (2010)
- 박혜건, "수사지휘체계 확립에 관한 소고", 검찰, (24) (1970)
- 서보학, "수사권의 독점 또는 배분? - 경찰의 수사권 독립 요구에 대한 검토", 형사법연구, 12 (1999)
- 손동권, "수사절차에서의 경찰과 검찰의 관계-독일과의 비교를 중심으로", 경찰대학논문집, 13 (1993)
- 송관호, "검사의 사법경찰관리에 대한 구체적 수사지휘 방법", 사법연수원논문집, 2 (2005)
- 신동운, "수사지휘권의 귀속에 관한 연혁적 고찰(Ⅰ)", 법학, 42(1) (2001), 서울대학교
- 신동운, "수사지휘권의 귀속에 관한 연혁적 고찰(Ⅱ)", 법학, 42(2) (2001), 서울대학교
- 신양균, "검사의 수사지휘권에 대한 검토", 경찰학연구, 7(1), pp.147~172 (2007), 경찰대학
- 신양균, "수사구조개혁에 부합하는 경찰수사조직의 발전방향", 치안논총, 23 (2007)
- 안성수, "인권보호와 검사의 수사지휘권", 법조, 55(6), pp.19~50 (2006), 법조협회
- 유용봉, "수사주재권의 근거와 한계", 비교형사법연구, 8(1(2)), pp.253~276 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이동희, "한국 수사구조의 비교법제적 위상 및 개선방향", 경찰학연구, (7), pp.146~190 (2004), 경찰대학
- 이영란, "한국의 수사권체제", 형사정책, (7) (1995)
- 정병대, "수사구조에 관한 연구 - 수사절차에 있어서의 검찰․경찰제도의 비교법적 고찰", pp.2007
- 이진국, "수사권독립 논의에 관한 검토", 형사정책연구, 14(2), pp.5~202 (2003), 한국형사정책연구원
- 정지운, "경‧검 수사권의 합리적인 조정에 관한 연구", 비교형사법연구, 12(1), pp.251~273 (2010), 한국비교형사법학회
- 조국, "현 시기 검찰？경찰 수사권조정의 원칙과 방향―형사소송법 제195조, 제196조의 개정을 중심으로―", 서울대학교 법학, 46(4), pp.219~241 (2005), 법학연구소
- 천진호, "합리적 수사권 조정 원리에 관한 연구", 경찰학연구, (9), pp.9~44 (2005), 경찰대학
- 영장청구권의 귀속에 관한 연구, "천진호", 치안정책연구소, ~ (2007)
- 표창원, "경찰수사권 독립이 인권보장의 첩경", 형사정책, 15(1) (2003)
- 하태훈, "범죄수사단계에서의 사법경찰과 검찰의 관계", 홍대논총, 30 (1998)
- 경찰청, "형사사법 선진화를 위한 정책방향, In 수사구조개혁 백서" (2010)
- 사법경찰관리에 대한 지휘감독에 관한 건, "국가기록원", 대구지방검찰청 의성지청 사무과, ~ (1961)
- 검찰청법안, "국가기록원", 대구지방검찰청 안동지청 사무과, ~ (1948)
- 수사권조정에 대한 검찰의 입장, "대검찰청", ~ (2005)
- 검찰제요, "대검찰청", ~ (1948)
- 검찰청법연혁, "대검찰청", ~, pp.검찰사자료 제1집 (1996)
- 대검찰청, "한국검찰사" (1976)
- 형사절차 총괄책임제 전국 실시 건의, "대전지방검찰청 천안지청의", ~ (2010)
- 법무연수원, "수사지휘론" (2003)
- 사법연수원, "수사절차론" (2005)
- 검사의 수사지휘권 행사에 관한 연구, "조국", 경찰청, ~ (2009)
- "춘천지방검찰청 강릉지청 검사 황OO 의견서", ~ (2006)
- 형사정책연구원, "형사소송법 제․개정자료집(상)" (2009)