검경수사권갈등 조정의 특징과 원인에 관한 연구

Abstract

This paper analyzed why investigation-power conflict between the police and the prosecution got acute and how it was settled. The conflict became acute because it was not only a jurisdictional struggle between powerful agencies but also it was intertwined with values, self-esteem and emotion. The conflict was settled by the intervention of third parties because the parties in conflict themselves could not make an agreement. The third parties made a compromise and persuaded it forcibly to both of them. Characteristically, many third parties such as legislative members, the ruling party, the government coordination office, and the presidency intervened to solve the conflict and mobilized all kinds of the coordination mechanism, such as facilitation, conciliation, compromise-persuasion and arbitration. And the third parties followed a formula-detail process, while the police and the prosecution did an incremental-agreement process. The police and the prosecution used in common strategies of partly-accommodation, issue-association, majority-mobilization, confidence-mobilization, internal coherence, the opponent-scarring, and the third party-threatening. Furthermore, the prosecution used reversion and delay strategies, whereas the police did dilution. The factors influencing the position-change were the president's campaign committment, the least-concession strategy, politicians' pressure and critical attitudes of public opinions on the part of the prosecution, and amicable attitudes of politicians and public opinion, adroit strategy of concession on the part of the police. The determinants of delaying the settlement can be attributed to zero-sum element and low priority of the issue in conflict, jurisdictional dispute of powerful agencies, the president’s avoidance of arbitration, failure of managing the issue, and simultaneous operation of coordinating machines. The partly success of the police was due to its effective strategy and politicians’ assistance, while the successful defence of the prosecution to its delaying strategy and human network in the establishment.