독립행정기관의 설치와 헌법상의 규율―「고위공직자범죄수사처 설치 및 운영에 관한 법률위헌확인[2021. 1. 28. 2020헌마264‧681(병합)]」 사건을 소재로 하여―

유진식 한국행정판례연구회 2021 행정판례연구 Vol.26 No.2

This paper, based on the constitutional decision(2020Hun-Ma264 ․681) about the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigation Office”), is to analyze how the constitutional regulation works on the construction of a independent administrative agency. In this decision, the Court opinion hold that the “Investigation Office” is constitutional because it is not prohibited in light of interpretation on the Korean Constitution. And it also said the construction of the “Investigation Office” does not deny the principle of division of powers. On the contrary, the opposition opinion argued that the "Investigation Office" does deny the principle because we cannot say where it belongs among the legislative power(Constitution Article 40), judicial power(Constitution Article 101) and administrative power (Constitution Article 66). And it also said that the business of the “Investigation Office” is incompatible with that of a prosecutor guaranteed in Constitution and laws. This paper agree to the Court opinion that the “Investigation Office” is constitutional but the logic it employs is not acceptable. And opposition opinion also has the same logical problem. The main reason two opinions are based on the false theories is that they don’t understand the concept of Executive power(Constitution Article 66(4)) fully. The concept is different from that of the administration employed in the Administrative Text Book. It means not an administrative agency’s activities but ‘government power’ executed by a President. Based on the concept, we can theorise the constitutional regulation on the independent administrative agency in two categories as follows; the first is the principle of division of powers and the second is the principle of construction of administrative organization law. At first, let’s think about it based on the principle of division of powers. In this context, he principle of division of powers means that any power among them should not infringe on other’s essential power, that is, the legislation power to enact a law, the judicial power to judge all legal disputes and litigations and to issue a warrant, and the president’s government power guaranteed in the Constitution. According to this theory, the construction of the "Investigation Office" is constructional because it dose not infringe on any essential powers of them. Secondly, let’s think about it based on the principle of construction of administrative organization law. It is made up of ① the principle of assignment, ② the principle of supervision and adjustment and ③ the principle of responsibility. From the point of view, the principle ① means that one administrative agency should not infringe on another’s power guaranteed in the constitution. And the principles ②③ can be thought to be satisfied with as long as national administrative affairs are dealt with by the Executive Ministries under the direction of The Prime Minister(Constitution Article 87(2)). From this point of view, we can conclude that the construction of the “Investigation Office” is constructional, because the business of the “Investigation Office” dose not infringe on the right of arraignment and the principles②③the “Investigation Office” to work well with the cooperation of legislation power, judicial power and executive power. 본고는 공수처 설치에 대하여 위헌성 여부가 다투어진 헌재의 결정을 소재로 하여 독립행정기관을 설치에 대하여 헌법상의 규율이 어떻게 작동되고 있는가에 대하여 살펴본 글이다. 이 점에 대하여 헌재 법정의견은 공수처는 독립한 행정기관이고 헌법은 국무총리 통할 하에 행정각부가 행정사무를 처리하는 것만을 허용하는 것은 아니기 때문에 공수처의 설치는 합헌이라고 한다. 또 본 건에서 논의의 중심인 권력분립원칙 위반 여부에 대하여 오늘날 권력분립은 단순히 3권의 분리만을 강조하는 것이 아니라 협조에도 중점을 두고 있기 때문에 공수처는 권력분립원칙에도 위배되지 않는다고 한다. 이에 대하여 반대의견은 기능적 권력분립 이론의 전개에 대하여는 긍정 하지만 공수처는 입법권, 사법권, 행정권 어디에도 속하지 않기 때문에 이는 권력분립 원칙에 위배된다고 한다. 또 공수처의 직무는 헌법과 법률이 보장하고 있는 검사의 수사권과 공소권을 침해하고 있다고 한다. 필자는 공수처의 설치가 합헌이라는 헌재의 법정의견의 결론에는 찬성하지만 그 논리에는 잘못이 있다고 생각한다. 이 점에 대해서는 반대의견도 마찬가지의 모순점을 지니고 있다. 이처럼 헌재의 법정의견과 반대의견이 독립행정기관의 헌법상 규율에 대하여 모순된 논리를 전개하고 있는 최대의 이유는 헌법 제66조 4항에서 규정하고 있는 「행정권」의 개념에 대한 이해를 결여(缺如)하고 있는 데서 찾아 볼 수 있다. 헌법 제66조 제4항의 「행정권」의 개념은 행정법학이 주로 행정작용법을 염두에 두고 정의하고 있는 ‘행정’의 개념과는 다른 「집정(執政)」을 의미한다. 이렇게 「행정권」을 「집정(執政)」으로 이해할 때 독립행정기관의 설치에 대한 헌법상 규율에 대하여 다음과 같이 두 가지 카테고리에서의 이론구성이 가능하다고 본다. 첫째로 권력분립원칙이다. 이 관점에서 보면 3권이 각각 그 핵심영역, 즉 입법권은 법률의 제정(=법규의 창출), 사법권은 「법률상의 쟁송」(법원조직법 제2조)에 대한 최종 판단권과 영장발부권 그리고 행정권은 헌법이 보장하고 있는 「집정(執政)권」(주로 대통령에 의해서 행사된다)이 각각 침탈 하지 않는 한 권력분립원칙에는 위배되지 않는다. 따라서 공수처의 설치는 위의 3권의 핵심적인 영역을 침탈하는 것이 아니기 때문에 권력분립원칙에 위배되지 않는다. 둘째로 행정조직법의 구성원리에 관점에서의 이론이다. 행정조직법의 구성원리란 ①분배의 원리, ②통제 및 조정의 원리 그리고 ③책임의 원리를 말한다. 분배의 원리의 관점에서 말하면 A행정기관이 B행정기관의 헌법이 보장하는 권한을 침해해서는 안 된다는 것이다. 그리고 ②통제 및 조정의 원리 와 ③책임의 원리에서의 규율은, 헌법이 국무총리의 통할 하에서 행정각부가 행정사무를 처리하도록 함으로써 그 요건은 충족된다. 이렇게 볼 때 공수처의 권한은 검사의 공소권을 침해하는 것이 아니고 또 공수처장의 임명 통제 및 조정 그리고 책임에 대하여 입법권, 사법권 그리고 행정권이 서로 협업하여 이 기능을 수행하고 있기 때문에 위의 요건 역시 충족되고 있다고 생각한다. 이상에서 살펴본 것처럼 독립행정기관인 공수처의 설치는 합헌이라고 할 수 있다.

주희 공부론의 구조

김광민 한국도덕교육학회 2011 道德敎育硏究 Vol.23 No.2

'Mind-Cultivation'(涵養) and 'Investigation of Principle'(窮理) are the key concepts which consist of Chu Hsi's theory of self-cultivation. When we consider Chu Hsi's way of thinking, which attaches importance to 'Investigation of Principle', it seems to be natural that 'Mind-Cultivation' should be interpreted as the other side of 'Investigation of Principle'. If this interpretation is accepted, it is inevitable that 'Mind-Cultivation' can not be considered as a separate activity from 'Investigation of Principle' and that self-cultivation doesn't have additional channel except 'Investigation of Principle'. But in Chu Hsi's theory of self-cultivation, 'Mind-Cultivation' can be interpreted as 'activity' which is different from 'Investigation of Principle'. The possibility of this interpretation is already expected when we come into contact with Chu Hsi's interpretation of the relation between 'Honoring the moral nature'(尊德性) and 'Following the path of study and inquiry'(道問學), corresponding to the relation between 'Mind-Cultivation' and 'Investigation of Principle'. 'Mind-Cultivation' is a channel for self-cultivation in itself as well as the purpose of self-cultivation, so it works in the process of self-cultivation and incites students to come near a sage. Chu Hsi thinks that 'Investigation of Principle' is the core of self-cultivation, but he says that 'Mind-Cultivation' is important, none the less. After all Chu Hsi thinks that 'Mind-Cultivation' is the purpose of self-cultivation on which 'Investigation of Principle' and 'Mind-Cultivation' converge in the end. 함양(涵養)과 궁리(窮理)는 주희의 공부론을 이루는 핵심 개념이다. 궁리를 중시하는 주희의 체계에 주목할 때, 함양이 궁리의 이면이라는 해석은 일견 자연스럽다. 이 해석에 따르면, 함양은 궁리 이외의 별개의 활동으로 이해될 수 없으며, 나아가 함양은 궁리를 통하지 않으면 확보될 수 없는 것으로 된다. 그러나 주희의 공부론에서 함양은 활동으로 이해될 수 있으며, 공부는 궁리와는 다른 경로, 즉 활동을 통한 함양의 가능성도 확인할 수 있다. 이 점은 함양과 궁리의 관련에 상응하는 존덕성(尊德性)과 도문학(道問學)의 관련 방식을 해석하는 데에서도 시사 받을 수 있다. 함양은 공부의 목적이자 그 자체가 공부로서, 그것은 공부의 과정에 지속적으로 작용하면서 공부에 임하는 사람을 공부의 최종상태에 다가갈 수 있게 한다. 주희가 공부에서 궁리의 중추적인 역할을 인정하면서도 함양을 부각시킨 것은, 활동으로서의 궁리와 함양은 공부의 최종목적으로서의 함양에 수렴되어야 할 것을 강조한 것이다.

김시습의 '성즉리'설에 내포된 수양론적 특징

엄연석 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2012 人文論叢 Vol.68 No.-

This thesis examined Kim Siseup’s philosophy within the category of the principle and material force theory of Neo-Confucianism, and tried to elucidate the characteristic elements of his understanding of Neo-Confucianism, mainly in light of the cultivating theory, by regarding the theory of ‘human nature is principle’ as a central proposition. Kim Siseup widely accepted the theory of the Great Ultimate, principle and material force, the theory of mind and nature, and the opinion of cultivation focusing on reverence, deliberation of principle, and sincerity, all of which had been established after the North Song Dynasty. In particular, he actively adopted a theory of ‘human nature is principle’ as a core thesis which not only combines the metaphysics of Neo-Confucianism with the theory of mind and nature, but also exposes the essence of Neo-Confucianism as it is. This essay analysed the meaning of the cultivating theory involved in the theory of ‘human nature is principle’ accepted by Kim Siseup through an concrete examination of its contents. Kim Siseup’s opinion regarding the investigation of principle, which serves as its momentum, through the medium of his understanding of the Book of Changes in the process of cultivation from reverence to sincerity was considered. According to this, it can be said that the meaning and characteristics of the cultivating theory involved in the theory of ‘human nature is principle’ to which he refers to embraces the processes of reverence, sincerity and the investigation of principle through the medium of the Book of Changes. In this light, Kim Siseup’s theory of ‘human nature is principle’ can be seen to have mainly embodied, as it is, the fundamental theory of Neo-Confucianism which was built and systematized after the North Song Dynasty. In this point, the writer could evaluate that Kim Siseup considered the core question of the Great Ultimate, the principle and material force theory, the theory of mind and nature, and the cultivating theory that had been discussed within Neo-Confucianism by scholars up to Zhu xi, and that it was Kim Siseup that had consistently synthesized and intensified the Neo-Confucianism of the Joseon Dynasty before Toegae and Yulgok.

북한의 예심제도

김성천(Kim, Seong-Cheon) 중앙법학회 2021 中央法學 Vol.23 No.3

지구상에서 가장 먼저 예심제도를 도입한 나라는 프랑스이다. 1522년에 예심 절차를 담당하는 형사총감이라는 직책을 만들면서 시작된 것이다. 예심제도를 도입한 이유는 규문주의의 폐단 때문이다. 프랑스의 예심제도를 ‘프랑스식 규문주의’라고 보는 입장도 있지만, 소추기관과 재판기관이 인적으로 분리되어 있는가를 기준으로 판단하자면 프랑스의 예심제도는 탄핵주의에 속한다고 할 수 있다. 재판기관이 수사까지 담당하는 규문주의가 가지는 중요한 문제점은 재판기관이 수사를 개시하면서 스스로 오판을 하면 그 상황에서 벗어나기가 거의 불가능하다는 점이다. 이는 자신의 판단이 잘못되었다는 것을 인정하지 않고자 하는 인간의 본성 때문에 발생하는 현상이어서 규문주의를 폐지하지 않는 한 시정이 불가능한 문제이다. 이를 시정하는 방법이 여러 가지가 있을 수 있는데, 프랑스는 예심판사를 별도로 두는 방식을 취하였다. 이러한 예심제도를 가지고 있는 국가가 별로 많지 않은 상황에서 북한이 예심제도를 가지고 있다는 사실이 상당히 특이해 보인다. 북한의 예심제도가 프랑스에서 직접 계수된 것은 아닌 것으로 생각된다. 그보다는 프랑스의 예심제도를 수입한 소비에트연방공화국을 통해서 도입된 것으로 추정된다. 해방 이후에 소련이 북한을 점령하였고 소련군에 입대했던 김일성이 권력을 잡았기 때문에 소련의 영향이 있었을 것으로 보인다. 북한의 예심제도는 프랑스와는 상당한 차이가 있다. 예심제도가 소련을 거쳐 수입되면서 매우 독특한 형태로 정착되었다. 우선 예심원이 스스로 예심을 개시할 수는 없고, 반드시 수사원, 검사 또는 재판소의 요청이 있어야 예심을 시작할 수 있다는 점에서 남한의 경찰과는 다른 속성을 가지고 있다. 예심의 모든 절차가 검사의 지휘 아래 진행된다는 측면에서는 남한의 검찰 수사관에 해당하는 조직으로 볼 수 있다. 또 한편으로 예심원은 사실관계를 확정하는 기능을 가지고 있다. 예심이 종결되고 검사가 기소를 하면 재판소는 형벌 부과에 대해서만 논의를 할 수 있다. 사실관계에 오류가 발견되면 재판을 중지한 후 사건을 예심원으로 돌려보낼 수 있을 뿐이다. 이러한 면에서 보면 북한의 예심은 남한에서 공판절차가 2단계로 분리될 경우에 제1단계에 해당한다고 할 수 있다. 여러 가지 면모를 들여다봐도 북한의 예심이 남한의 어느 소송절차에 해당한다는 언급을 하는 것은 불가능해 보인다. 북한의 예심제도는 그 원류인 프랑스의 예심제도와도 상당히 다른 아주 독특한 제도라고 할 수 있다. France was the first country on earth to introduce an Investigating Judge. It began in 1522 with the creation of the position of lieutenant particular criminal in charge of pretrial proceedings. The reason for introducing the pretrial system is because of the disadvantages of the Principle of Inquisition. Some view the French pretrial system as a "French Principle of Inquisition", but if it is judged based on whether the prosecution and the judiciary are individually separated, the French pretrial system can be said to belong to the Principle of Accusation. An important problem with the Principle of Inquisition, in which the court is in charge of the investigation, is that it is almost impossible to get out of the situation if the court makes an erroneous judgment while initiating the investigation. This is a phenomenon that occurs because of human nature not to admit that one"s judgment is wrong, and it is a problem that cannot be corrected unless the Principle of Inquisition is abolished. There may be several ways to correct this, but France took the method of having a separate Investigating Judge. The fact that North Korea has a pretrial system seems quite unusual in a situation where not many countries have such a pretrial system. It is believed that North Korea"s pretrial system was not directly counted in France. Rather, it is presumed that it was introduced through the Soviet Union, which imported the French pretrial system. After the liberation of Korea, the Soviet Union occupied North Korea and Kim Il-sung, who enlisted in the Soviet Army, came to power, so it is likely that there was a Soviet influence. North Korea"s pretrial system is quite different from that of France. As the pretrial system was imported through the Soviet Union, it was established in a very unique form. First of all, it has different properties from the South Korean police in that an Investigating Judge cannot initiate a trial on their own, and can only start a trial with the request of an investigator, prosecutor, or court. In the sense that all procedures of the preliminary trial are conducted under the direction of the prosecutor, it can be seen as an organization that corresponds to the South Korean prosecutor"s investigator. On the other hand, the Investigating Judge has the function of confirming the facts. After the trial has been concluded and the prosecution has made an indictment, the tribunal can only discuss the imposition of a penalty. If an error is found in the facts, the case can only be returned to the Investigating Judge after the trial is stopped. In this respect, North Korea"s pretrial system can be said to correspond to the first stage when the trial procedure in South Korea is divided into two stages. It seems impossible to say that North Korea"s pretrial system corresponds to any criminal procedure in South Korea, even if we look at various aspects. North Korea"s pretrial system can be said to be a very unique system that is quite different from the French pretrial system, its origin.

주희의 공부론 : 불교 수행론과의 관련

김광민 한국도덕교육학회 2010 道德敎育硏究 Vol.21 No.2

The conjunction of ‘Mind-Cultivation’(涵養) and ‘Investigation of Principle’(窮理) is the characteristics of Chu Hsi's theory of self-cultivation(工夫). 'Mind-Cultivation in the not-yet-manifested state'(未發涵養), in which mental activities such as emotion and thoughtful deliberation have not yet aroused, is different from 'Investigation of Principle' in that it emphasizes the calmness and concentration of mind. In this way, ‘Mind-Cultivation’ is similar to 'Meditation'(禪) of Buddhism. Chu Hsi criticizes the Buddhist practice in his days because 'Meditation' tries to eliminate consciousness and thought in Buddhist practice. But 'Interrelation of Cessation and Wisdom'(定慧雙修) as the general principle of Buddhist practice corresponds to the relation between ‘Mind-Cultivation’ and ‘Investigation of Principle’. According to Chu Hsi, ‘Mind-Cultivation’ is put in circulation with ‘Investigation of Principle’, which is mediated by 'Nature'(性), and this circulation leads us to the 'Heaven'(天). The possibility of unification of the two routes of self-cultivation, which can be further on the opposite direction, demands assumption that ‘Mind-Cultivation’ involves the side of ‘Investigation of Principle’ and ‘Investigation of Principle’ involves the side of ‘Mind-Cultivation’. The assumption is intelligible in that 'Equilibrium'(中) as the goal of self-cultivation represents both 'calmness'(靜) and 'moving'(動)(or 'illuminating'(照)). But the circulation of ‘Mind-Cultivation’ and ‘Investigation of Principle’ is as mystic as ever, therefore it still leaves further explanations. 함양(涵養)과 궁리(窮理)는 주희 공부론의 두 축이다. 감정과 사고가 생기기 전에도 공부가 이루어져야 한다는 소위 ‘미발함양’은, 개념적 사고가 중심이 되는 궁리와는 다른 방향의 공부로서, 마음의 수렴(靜)을 초점으로 하며, 바로 그 점에서 불교의 禪과 유사하다. 주희의 관점에서 불교의 禪수행은 수행에서 사고를 제거하는 방향을 취한다는 점에서 비판의 대상이 되지만, 불교수행의 일반원리로서의 정혜쌍수(定慧雙修)는 함양․궁리의 관계와 면밀한 대응을 보여준다. 주희의 공부론에서 함양은 性을 매개로 하여 궁리와 순환하면서 수행자를 하늘의 경지로 이끈다. 함양과 궁리라는 상반된 방향의 공부가 순환 관계에 놓이면서 궁극적으로 하나가 되는 것은, 함양에는 궁리의 측면이, 그리고 궁리에는 함양의 측면이 들어 있다는 점을 가정함으로써 성립 가능한 것이다. 이 가정은 공부의 최종상태인 中이 ‘靜’과 ‘動’의 특징을 모두 가진다는 점에서 어느 정도 이해될 수 있다. 그러나 함양과 궁리의 순환에는 여전히 신비스러운 면이 있으며, 그 점에서 설명의 여지를 남기고 있다.

행정조사에서 변호인 조력권과 진술거부권 침해 문제

김병주 사법발전재단 2022 사법 Vol.1 No.59

Today, in the process of administrative investigation, problems such as infringement of basic rights and procedural rights of the people continue to arise. Recently, a series of cases have caused many problems, such as the Financial Supervisory Service's prohibition of participation in investigation and attendance of lawyers. With this awareness of the problem, amendments are being made to supplement procedural rights, such as the right to counsel, but individual laws and regulations governing many administrative investigations still seek administrative efficiency and public interest. Procedural guarantees regarding the subject's right to counsel, the right to refuse to testify, and the duty to notify are neglected. Widely recognizing the right to counsel of the subject of investigation in the administrative investigation stage is consistent with the principle of due process, which is the core of the principle of the rule of law and is also valid from the point of view of the principle of equality of arms. In addition, in administrative investigation procedures equivalent to criminal procedures, such as criminal investigation by the special judicial police, where cases of human rights violations are frequent, the enhanced procedural rights and defense rights that are granted to criminal suspects must be guaranteed as well. If the subject of investigation refuses to investigate the contents that are not related to the criminal disadvantage, the investigation can be forced indirectly and psychologically through the application of penalty provisions for non-response to the investigation, but no separate exercise of force can be performed. In addition, if a question of the investigator in the administrative investigation procedure is related to the fact of a criminal suspect, of course, the exercise of the right to refuse to testify must be recognized as a matter of principle. Even in relation to the offense of refusing to comply with the administrative investigation stipulated in individual laws, the exercise of the right to refuse a statement by the subject of investigation should be recognized as a justifiable reason for refusal of the investigation as a ground for violating the law. In particular, it is considered that the investigation method of requesting a confirmation letter conducted in the field investigation is an unfair investigation practice that needs to be eradicated as soon as possible because the investigation method actually requires the subject of investigation to renounce the exercise of the right to refuse to make a statement. It is self-evident that the principle of due process must be thoroughly observed in the administrative investigation procedure in order to restore the procedural legitimacy and fairness of the administration and to secure the public's trust in the administration. As a practical measure, the right to assistance of an attorney and the right to refuse to make a statement should be thoroughly guaranteed in order to reassure the enhanced defense right of the subject of investigation, and it is requested that regulations regarding the fulfillment of the duty of notification be prepared as soon as possible. 오늘날 행정조사 과정에서 국민의 기본권과 절차적 권리 침해 등의 문제가 끊이지 않고 있다. 특히 최근에는 금융감독원 등 행정기관에서 변호사에 대하여 조사 참여 및 동석을 금지하여 변호인 조력권을 침해하는 사건들이 잇따라 발생하여 많은 문제를 야기하기도 하였다. 이러한 문제의식하에 행정조사에 관한 여러 법령에 변호인 조력권 등 절차적 권리를 보완하기 위한 개정이 이루어지고 있는 추세이나, 여전히 다수 행정조사의 개별 법령은 행정의 효율성과 공익성을 우선 추구한 나머지, 조사대상자의 변호인 조력권과 진술거부권 고지의무 등에 관한 절차적 보장을 외면하고 있는 실정이다. 행정조사 단계에서 조사대상자의 변호인 조력권을 폭넓게 인정하는 것이 법치국가원리의 핵심에 해당하는 적법절차원칙의 이념에 부합하고, 무기대등원칙의 관점에서도 타당하다. 또한 인권 침해 사례가 빈번한 특별사법경찰의 범칙사건 수사 등 형사절차에 준하는 행정조사 절차에서는 형사피의자에게 부여하는 수준의 고양된 절차적 권리와 방어권이 보장되어야 하므로, 조사대상자에게 당연히 변호인 조력권도 고지하는 것이 바람직하다. 만일 조사대상자가 형사상 불리한 내용과 상관없는 내용에 대한 조사를 거부할 경우에는 조사불응에 대한 벌칙 규정의 적용을 통하여 간접적·심리적으로 조사를 강제할 수 있을 뿐, 실력행사를 할 수는 없다. 또한 행정조사 단계에서 조사원의 질문이 형사상 피의사실과 관련된 것이라면 당연히 진술거부권 행사가 인정되어야 한다. 개별 법령에 규정한 행정조사 불응죄와 관련하여서도 조사대상자의 진술거부권 행사는 조사 거부에 대한 정당한 사유로서 위법성조각사유로 인정하여야 할 것이다. 특히 현장조사에서 이루어지는 확인서 징구(徵求)의 조사 방식은 사실상 조사대상자로 하여금 진술거부권 행사의 포기를 요구하는 것이어서 조속히 근절되어야 한다고 생각된다. 행정의 절차적 정당성과 공정성을 회복하고 국민의 행정에 대한 신뢰를 확보하기 위해서는 행정조사 절차에서 적법절차원칙이 철저하게 준수되어야 함은 자명하다. 그 실천적 방안으로 조사대상자의 고양된 방어권의 실질적 보장을 위하여 변호인 조력권, 진술거부권을 철저히 보장하고, 그 고지의무 이행에 관한 규정도 조속히 마련되기를 기대한다.

霞谷 鄭濟斗의 良知說과 倫理思想 - 「存言」ㆍ「學辯」을 中心으로 -

徐恩淑 한중철학회 2005 한중철학 Vol.9 No.-

하곡은 양명의 심즉리,치양지설, 격물치지설 등을 바탕으로, 이보다 한걸음 나아간 그의 양지설, 격물설, 심성천 일체론 등의 사상들을 전개한다. 그의 양지설에서 양지란 억지로 작위하지 않고서도 선이 되는 것, 바로 지극한 선이요 이것이 바로 양지의 본 모습이라고 본다. 그는 양명에서처럼 격물은 외부의 진리를 찾는 것이 아닌 내부의 양지를 깨닫는 것이라고 보았고, 치지는 양지의 이르름, 양지의 완성으로 보았다. 또한 하곡은 양명의 심즉리를 중심으로 그의 심성천 일체론을 주장한다. 하곡은 본체계와 현상계를 일원론적으로 파악한다. 하곡은 리를 정의함에 있어 생리, 실리, 심체, 천리라고 보고 있고, 이는 성과 일치한다고 보아 심성천 일체론을 강조한다. 하곡 양지설의 윤리사상에는 욕심의 제거와 誠을 통한 인간 주체성 회복을 들 수 있다. 하곡은 인간이 만물의 주체임을 강조한 동시에 천성을 부여 받은 존재라고 보았다. 그러므로 인간은 만사의 원천이고 주인이 되며, 이러한 인간의 주체성은 객체 즉 만물과의 일체감을 갖는다고 말한다. 또한 하곡 은 학문이 일용지간의 심상에서 하는 학문이 실이 있는 학문이라는 실학적, 경세적 성격을 담고 있고, 하곡의 양명학이 주자학에 대한 비판에서 출발하지만 그 실상에서 그의 학문은 도문학과 존덕성의 조화, 주객일체 통합론 등 朱王 절충적인 학문적 성격을 나타낸다. Hagok stressed the thoughts of pure knowledge(Liangzhi), investigating things - extending knowledge and the unity of mind, nature and Heaven on the basis of Wang Yang-ming's thoughts of mind is principle, the realization of pure knowledge and investigating things - extending knowledge. Hagok said Laingzhi is a fully-formed goodness that is not made by artificiality. At the same time investigating things means that the realization of innate pure knowledge not acquiring outer truth and extending knowledge means realization of Liangzhi. completion of Liangzhi. Hagok also explained the unity of mind, nature and Heaven on the basis of Wang's mind is principle. He thought essence and existence on monistic direction. He expressed that principle is live principle, real principle, mind-entity and principle of Heaven. That means principle is nature, so he said the unity of mind, nature and Heaven. The ethical thoughts in his theory of Liangzhi are removing human desires and the realization of human identity through sincerity. Human nature is the subject among myriad things and has been given the nature of Heaven. Therefore human nature is the origin and master of everything and simultaneously has a sense of unity with myriad things. Lastly, he emphasized learning which is made in daily life is a real and administrative learning. Hagok started his studies from critique of Zhuxi but it emphasized the harmony of pursuing inquiry and study and honoring the virtuous nature. At the same time, his studies suggested the unity of subject - object and the compromising aspects of Zhuxi and Wang, Yang-ming.

형사절차상 내사의 의의와 한계

강동욱(Kang, DongWook) 한양법학회 2012 漢陽法學 Vol.23 No.2

Pre-investigation activities refer to activities that the judicial police and the public prosecutor confidentially perform to find out someone’ criminal suspicion before they investigate about him as the suspect by criminal booking. They called as “an interim investigation case” too. Pre-investigation activities are being used by the investigatory organizations as one of the effective methods for criminal investigation. But the legal ground of Pre-investigation activities is not clear. Some peoples assert that their legal ground can be found in the Art. 199 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The others assert that their legal ground can be found from general provisons about the official authority of the investigatory organizations. In our country, there are the presidential decree and the justice ministry ordinance as the exiting regulations about pre-investigation activities. But I think that they can be served as legal ground for pre-investigation activities by the investigatory organizations because they are merely internal administrative rule. Therefore we have to enact the law that regulate immediately about the pre-investigation activities. The compulsory measures of the investigatory organizations in the criminal procedure have to regulate by the law. And the investigatory organizations can’ do any legal disposition against the person who was subject to inquire in course of pre-investigation activities, because the examinee is not the suspect. Someone assert pre-investigation activities can be included under the category of the investigation by expanding the concept of investigation. But The Supreme Court declared that if the investigatory organizations had to do some legal disposition in course of pre-investigation activities, it is the investigation, not pre-investigation activities. And it is not allowed expect the special case, like the organized crime, the business crime etc. that the investigatory organizations make the direct inquiry against the examinee in course of pre-investigation activities although it is are voluntary.

诱惑侦查的正当性研究

왕징,박상식 단국대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학논총 Vol.43 No.2

Temptation has been detected in ancient times. It is generally believed thattemptation investigation originated before and after the bourgeois revolution incontinental Europe, and then gradually evolved to that in order to crack the case, theinvestigators and their assistants used some profitable behavior as a bait, suggestingor a special investigative means that induces the investigator to commit a criminalact and arrest the tempted person after the criminal act is committed or the criminalresult occurs. The state has enacted laws to give investigative organs the right toinvestigate, to collect evidence, punish crimes, and protect the interests of the people. Temptation investigation has the incomparable advantages of traditional investigationmethods. The law allows the investigation organs to use temptation investigation todetect such special crimes within certain limits. The external value of temptation investigation, that is, the benign role of the valueof the tool is obvious: on the one hand, it has economic benefits; on the other hand,it has the high speed and high efficiency of investigation work. However, in intrinsicvalue, its disadvantages are prominent, reflected in the issue of legality. Whether thetemptation investigative behavior has laws to follow, is strictly enforced, and violatesthe human rights are inconsistent, and temptation investigation faces an embarrassingsituation that cannot be used or abused. The basic concept of the Criminal Procedure Law emphasizes that both punishmentof crime and protection of human rights are equally important. The conflict betweenpunishment and protection of human rights is manifested here as a conflict betweeninvestigation and morality. It is power conflict. In combating crime and maintainingsocial stability, the two are “joining together”; in human rights protection, the two inevitably have conflicts. To make temptation investigations useful, practical, legal,and reasonable, we can only give a dynamic criterion, that is, prohibit excessiverules. First, legislative provisions and judicial practice do not deny the existence anduse of temptation investigation. What we have to master is only the degree. Degreeis the unified scope of quality and quantity, and it is the limit, range and scope ofthe quantity that guarantees its quality. The degree of temptation to detect existence and use is a matter of legitimacy andrationality. How the investigators use temptation to detect the case within the scopepermitted by law, is the primary consideration of prohibiting the excessive principle. Second, the use of temptation to detect cannot exceed the minimum that a socialmorality can tolerate. An important reason for the public’s resistance to temptationinvestigation is that their privacy and security will be in an unstable state. This is insharp contrast to the surveillance system. Finally, temptation investigation usually hasa process. Undercover and informants will face many conflicts and temptations, lawsand consciences, and how to enable investigators to control themselves, investigateaccording to law and stick to the moral bottom line in the process of temptationinvestigation. 诱惑侦查古已有之, 在不同的历史时段里我们都能看见它的影子。普遍认为诱惑侦查作为一种近现代意义的正式侦查手段起源于欧洲大陆资产阶级革命前后, 而后逐步演变成为破获案件, 侦查人员及其协助人员以实施某种有利可图的行为为诱饵,暗示或诱使侦查对象实施犯罪行为, 待犯罪行为实施或犯罪结果发生后拘捕被诱惑者的一种特殊侦查手段或方法。面对当今社会纷繁的不稳定因素以及错综复杂的新型犯罪和隐蔽性犯罪, 国家制定法律赋予侦查机关侦查权以达到收集证据, 惩罚犯罪, 保护广大人民的利益的目的。诱惑侦查作为一种特殊有效的侦查手段, 有传统侦查方法不可比拟的优势, 为维护整体的利益, 法律在一定限度内允许侦查机关为侦破这类特殊犯罪采用诱惑侦查的手段。诱惑侦查的外在价值, 即工具价值方面的良性作用是比较明显的: 一方面具有经济效益, 体现于以最小的经济代价换取最大的侦破案件的成果;另一方面具有侦查工作的高速度、高效率, 以最短的时间完成难度很高的刑事案件的侦破工作。但是从内在价值而言, 它的不良之处也是非常突出的, 主要体现在合法性问题上, 诱惑侦查行为是否有法可依、是否严格执法、是否侵犯了社会大众的人权在理论界莫衷一是, 诱惑侦查面临着不可不用、不可滥用的尴尬局面。刑事诉讼法基本理念强调惩罚犯罪与保障人权并重, 二者之间必须达到一个微妙的平衡点, 惩罚犯罪与保障人权的冲突在此表现为诱惑侦查与道德之间的冲突, 归根到底是一种权力冲突。在打击犯罪和维护社会稳定方面, 二者是 “同心协力”、相辅相成的;在具体人权保障方面, 二者又不可避免的产生冲突。社会道德是不断变化的, 诱惑侦查的标准也会有所发展, 要使诱惑侦查用好、用实、合法、合理, 我们只能给出一条动态的判定标准, 即禁止过分原则。首先, 立法规定和司法实践并不否认诱惑侦查的存在与使用, 我们要掌握的只是一个度的问题。何为度? 度是质和量统一的范畴, 是事物保证其质的量的界限、幅度和范围。诱惑侦查存在和使用的度就是合法性、合理性的问题。侦查人员如何在法律允许的范围内运用诱惑侦查的手段侦破案件, 打击犯罪而不突破法律的界限是禁止过分原则首要考虑的问题。其次, 诱惑侦查其本身的使用不能逾越一个社会道德观念所能容忍的最低限度。社会公众对诱惑侦查强烈抵触的一个重要原因是自身的隐私性、安全性会处于一种不稳定、不确信的状态。这与以监狱为代表的监视制度形成强烈对比,后文会有详细论述。再次, 诱惑侦查通常会有一个过程, 卧底和线人在这期间可能会遇到很多事情, 会面临诸多冲突和诱惑、法律和良知的考验, 如何让侦查人员在诱惑侦查过程中把持自身, 依法侦查, 坚守道德底线。

세무조사제도에 대한 비교법적 검토와 시사점 — 세무조사 녹음권과 행정조사기본법을 중심으로 —

서보국 행정법이론실무학회 2023 행정법연구 Vol.- No.70

Tax investigation is ‘hoheitliches Realakt’ under the administrative law, and precedents choose the latter as to whether to fight the case itself or the tax procedure if there is a defect. In addition, as an issue in public law, there was a controversy over whether to recognize the tax investigation decision, which is the previous step, as a disposition, but the precedent recognizes it. However, until now, as an issue in the public law review of tax investigations, there have been few cases in which tax authorities' excessive discretion and room for interpretation have been raised as issues in tax investigation procedures based on the viewpoints of violation of the principle of due process and procedural tax legalism. It is only supplemented from the viewpoint of protecting the rights of taxpayers. In tax administration practice and tax law, the issue of overlapping investigations in relation to due process was intensively dealt with, and although the prohibition of overlapping investigations was stipulated in the Framework Act on National Taxes, there are still unresolved issues. The cause of these problems is that the concept of tax investigation is not clear, and so far, the courts have only made practical decisions on a case-by-case basis. In this paper, a comparative legal review of tax procedural legal regulations and systems for tax investigations in the US, UK, and Germany is attempted, and specific regulations and exceptions for each stage are much more detailed than Korea's tax investigation system. In addition to these general problems, recent conflicts related to the guarantee of recording rights during tax investigations are introduced, and comparative legal considerations are attempted to solve these problems. According to the results of a comparative study on the systems of the United States and Taiwan, it is judged that the right to record in general tax investigation procedures, excluding criminal procedures, needs to be allowed given that the right to record tax investigation is specifically guaranteed along with sufficient procedural legal provisions. Moreover, it highlights the unclear basis on which the provisions of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigation, which are guaranteed in administrative investigations, do not apply to tax investigations. Article 3, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 5 of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigation is unconstitutional on the grounds that there is a need to ensure that the right to record tax investigation is more guaranteed for the protection of taxpayers in the area of ​​tax administration than in the area of ​​general administrative law, and the need for amendment.