생몰정보
소속
직위
직업
활동분야
주기
서지
국회도서관 서비스 이용에 대한 안내를 해드립니다.
검색결과 (전체 1건)
원문 있는 자료 (1) 열기
원문 아이콘이 없는 경우 국회도서관 방문 시 책자로 이용 가능
목차보기더보기
표제지
목차
제1장 서론 8
I. 연구 목적 8
II. 연구 범위와 방법 14
제2장 수사권 조정을 위한 전 단계 논의 15
I. 수사의 일반이론 15
1. 수사, 수사권, 수사지휘권의 개념 15
2. 수사의 목적 16
3. 수사의 지도원리 17
II. 수사기관의 종류 및 관계 19
1. 검사 19
2. 사법경찰관리 20
3. 현행법상 검사와 사법경찰관리의 관계 21
III. 형사소송에서의 수사절차의 위상 27
1. 수사절차의 탄생 27
2. 수사절차의 위상에 대한 재평가 28
3. 공판절차의 기능약화와 현 수사절차의 한계 32
IV. 경찰수사권의 법치국가적 문제점 33
1. 문제점 33
2. 현 법규상 수사에 대한 경찰수사권 주체성의 인정 여부 33
3. 외국 형사소송법상의 경찰수사권에 관한 규정검토 36
4. 소결론 37
제3장 각국의 수사구조의 비교법적 고찰 39
I. 검찰 주도형 국가 39
1. 독일 39
2. 프랑스 40
II. 경찰 주도형 국가 40
1. 영국 41
2. 미국 42
III. 혼합형 국가(일본) 43
IV. 소결론 44
제4장 우리나라 수사구조의 현황 및 문제점 46
I. 현행 수사의 구조 46
1. 우리나라 수사구조의 연혁 46
II. 우리나라 수사구조의 문제점 52
1. 검사의 사법경찰 수사에의 관여실태 52
2. 주도적인 검사의 수사 53
3. 수사·기소의 검찰 주도에 따른 폐해 54
4. 공소기관으로서 요구되는 객관성·중립성 저해 55
5. 현실과 법규범의 괴리 56
6. 국민편익과 인권보장의 미흡 57
7. 책임과 권한의 불일치, 경찰의 무소신 무책임 57
8. 검찰과 경찰의 부정부패 58
제5장 수사권 조정의 논쟁 59
I. 수사권 조정의 찬성론 59
1. 이론적 근거 59
2. 현실적 필요성에 따른 근거 61
II. 수사권 조정의 반대론 62
1. 이론적 근거 63
2. 현실적 필요성에 따른 논거 65
III. 수사권 조정의 찬·반 논쟁에 대한 검토 66
1. 직권주의 구조상 검사지휘의 필요성 66
2. 인권침해의 우려 67
3. 경찰권의 비대화 68
4. 경찰의 자질문제와 법률전문가에 의한 지휘 69
5. 검사의 수사주재권은 국민의 헌법적 결단 69
6. 검·경 간 수사권 충돌로 수사체계의 혼동 우려 등 70
제6장 수사권 조정 방안 71
I. 개정 형사소송법상 수사체제 논쟁 71
1. 경찰은 '독자적 수사주체성을 가진 수사권자'라는 입장 71
2. 경찰은 '파생적·제한적 수사권자'라는 입장 77
3. 개정 형사소송법관련 대통령령의 제정-검사의 사법경찰관리에 대한 수사지휘 및 사법경찰관리의 수사준칙에 관한규정- 83
II. 바람직한 수사권 조정의 방향과 모델 86
1. 경찰은 1차적 수사기관, 검찰은 2차적 수사기관 86
2. 상호 협력 관계 86
3. 송치전 관여 배제, 경찰의 영장청구권 부여 86
4. 경찰작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 88
5. 경찰의 수사종결권 일부 인정 및 검사의 보완수사 요구권 인정 90
6. 검사의 수사지휘에 관한 이의신청권 인정 90
7. 관련자의 이의제도 및 합동수사체제 구축 91
III. 경찰의 개혁과제 91
1. 수사경찰의 인권의식 확립 92
2. 수사경찰의 독립성 확보 92
3. 수사경찰의 공정성 확보 95
제8장 결론 97
참고문헌 100
ABSTRACT 105
초록보기 더보기
Although the current code of legal criminal procedure has mostly adopted the Anglo-American system of criminal suit structure, the structure of criminal investigation, which is under the influence of the continental legal system, adhere to under the supervision of prosecution. Therefore the judicial police officers are controlled and directed under the prosecution of justice department for criminal investigation. Due to the subordinating function of the police investigation to the prosecution, it has had a negative impact not only on the investigator's activeness and efficiency but also on reasonable police developments and morale of the whole police.
In this behalf, the prosecutions wield absolute power that no similar cases can be found elsewhere； such as the authority of investigation that enables the decision of the direction of the investment, the target and the range, the right of claim of warrants - such as arrest warrants, rights of prosecution that decides whether to subject the suspect to the trial, the right of indictment that permits whether to prosecute or not to prosecute a suspect, and the right of rescission of indictment that enables to recess the criminal trial that is already in process.
In the worst case, if the prosecution decides to abuse the omnipotent power, the victims would oily be the citizens.
Minimal separation of powers and a brake system of balances is the way to acknowledge the independent investigation authority and institutionalize the mutual checks and balancing.
Due to high economic growth and social changes, aspects of today's crime are increasing in quality and diversifying day by day. Moreover, expectations for the people's human rights awareness level have risen significantly over the past years. At such times, the criminal justice system that deals with various crimes is urgently requiring close mutual cooperation between the police and the prosecution and there ought to be a problem with the existing law of unification with the prosecution to protect people from crimes and governmental power.
Reviewing the results till today, the structure of Korean's current investigation system mimics Japan's old code of criminal procedure, but Japan, who was the mother of the system, has already changed from such an investigation system while we are still clinging to it.
To solve this problem, despite a number of congressional disputes, the national assembly passed through the criminal procedure amendment about the mediation of investigation authority between the police and the prosecution in last June 6. 2011. It has brought increasing the accountability of law enforcement agencies, minimizing the suspects' and defendants' violations of human rights and modifying the current laws in order for the reality of investigation and legal provisions coincide into effect.
By amending article 196 of the criminal procedure, the police were given their position as the principal of investigation to start and progress independently about investigating criminal charges. But since it also states that a judicial police officer is to take orders at 'all investigations' from a public prosecutor, the law itself is not agreeable. This is just recognizing the subjectivity of the investigation but the authority of conducting an investigation still remains with the prosecutor. Therefore it has faded the meaning of the mediation of investigation authority.
In the following thesis, I proposed how to regulate the investigation authority to achieve the goal of protecting people from crimes and government power through future legislation progress and by mutual checks and balances of power. Firstly, the police shall exercise primary investigation authority. But the prosecutors should exercise the secondary and supplemental investigation authority only on the following cases, such as if the judgment of prosecutors is needed, or if the prosecutors were appealed against the results of the investigation or if there is a dispute that accuses human rights abuses by police officers.
Secondly, according to the current constitution the prosecutors have the investigation authority and the police are being subjugated to prosecutors. But this should clarify the obligations of cooperation between the two organizations and prescribe the mutual relationship as equal and collaboration.
Thirdly, by eliminating the involvement of prosecutors before forwarding the case to the prosecutor's office and permitting the police to investigate with their own authority, unreasonable investigation interferences should be removed and the police's system of responsible investigation should be established.
Fourthly, the right of prosecutors to claim warrant in the constitution of Korea, article 12 paragraphs 3 and article 16 should be eliminated. And the right of claim of warrant of polices should be added along with the prosecutor's right of claim of warrant in the law of criminal procedure. In the case of a criminal investigation where the characteristics are similar to that of two sides of the same coin, the police should be granted the right of claim of warrant. While the police arrest of the criminal is eased, the propriety of the arrest could be decided by the judge after a simultaneous arrest of the criminal.
Fifthly, whether by widening or restricting the admissibility of evidence acknowledgement of the suspect's interrogation report, the authority of a protocol of suspect interrogatory which is written by the police should be recognized and be eliminated of discrimination compared to the prosecutor. This is to save the time and effort that could be wasted on double interrogation.
Sixthly, the police must be able to do an objection to supervision function of prosecutors for independence and neutrality of polices' work of investigation.
Seventhly, an establishment of a commission for investigation collaboration, which is a permanent consultation body, is needed. This will be a communication channel between the police and the prosecutors for smooth investigation collaboration and desirable cooperative relations.
Eighthly, the independence and impartiality of the police investigation should be ensured. The police must be guaranteed of self-regulating system and independent criminal investigation.
As mentioned, this research proposes the ability that the police and the prosecutors can cooperate with each other in the work through the rational allocation of investigation authority. By removing the conflicting structure sustained so far and keeping the appropriate checking system and balances between them, the prosecutors will fulfill their duties of keeping the legality of the investigation and protecting of human rights and the police having their own authority and responsibilities will provide better quality of investigation service to the people. This will be a framework of realization of a just society and the confidence of people will be restored to both the police and the prosecutor.
원문구축 및 2018년 이후 자료는 524호에서 직접 열람하십시요.
도서위치안내: / 서가번호:
우편복사 목록담기를 완료하였습니다.
* 표시는 필수사항 입니다.
* 주의: 국회도서관 이용자 모두에게 공유서재로 서비스 됩니다.
저장 되었습니다.
로그인을 하시려면 아이디와 비밀번호를 입력해주세요. 모바일 간편 열람증으로 입실한 경우 회원가입을 해야합니다.
공용 PC이므로 한번 더 로그인 해 주시기 바랍니다.
아이디 또는 비밀번호를 확인해주세요
