피내사자에 대한 수사목적 출국금지 허용에 관한 대법원 판례에 대한 비판적 검토

Abstract

The Supreme Court precedent and practice state that “a person who is deemed unsuitable to leave the country for criminal investigation” is included in addition to the suspect in addition to the suspect before the prosecutor concludes the investigation after the criminal investigation is started and the investigation is closed. Controversy and criticism continued as the subject of the departure ban was extended to include those who have been investigated or witnesses who have not been identified with any criminal charges. Recently, the internal laws and regulations related to the investigation by the police and prosecutors have been enacted and amended to strictly distinguish between internal investigation and investigation. to transition to phases. Moreover, the Human Rights Protection Investigation Rules explicitly stipulates that a departure ban is requested only when there is an unavoidable reason for the investigation. In addition, if prohibition of departure for investigative purposes is allowed, it will cause an unfair and unreasonable result in which rights are not guaranteed and only obligations are imposed compared to the suspect in the investigation stage, and fatal honor to the victim due to the leakage of internal secrets. The negative effect of the permissive theory is serious because it can lead to side effects such as damage or human rights violations, or hindering the efficient execution of internal investigations from the point of view of an investigative agency. Considering these points, in principle, it would be urgent to revise the law, such as stipulating in the Immigration Control Act, to ban departure for investigation purposes only for suspects.