경찰의 손실보상절차 및 그 결정에 대한불복방법

황순평(Hwang, Soon Pyong) 경찰대학 경찰학연구편집위원회 2015 경찰학연구 Vol.15 No.3

2013년 경찰관직무집행법의 개정으로 손실보상규정이 신설되어, 경찰관의 적법한 직무집행으로 인한 재산상 손실에 대해 국가가 이를 보상하는 제도가 마련되었다. 그간 법률의 공백에서 오는 경찰관의소극적 직무태도, 사비변상, 국가배상 법리의 왜곡 등 여러 문제점이 지적되어 왔던 만큼, 손실보상규정의 신설은 이론적으로나 실천적으로 획기적 입법조치임이 분명하다. 그러나 비재산적 손실에 대한 보상 등 그간의 문제가 모두 해소된 것은 아니다. 이러한 미완의 상태에서 본고는 손실보상절차 및 경찰의 결정에 대한 불복방법에 대한 검토를 시도하였다. 우선, 기존의 손실보상에 관한 논의와의 차별성을 염두에 두고, 손실보상절차와 관련하여 보상요건·기준·금액·방법 등경찰 손실보상에서의 특수한 논의전개에 집중하였다. 이어서 손실보상 신청인이 경찰의 보상여부 및 보상금액 결정에 불복하는 경우 어떠한 소송형식으로손실보상청구권을 실현시킬 수 있는지 살펴보았다. 이를 위해 소송형식에 관한 그간의 판례 입장을 정리하고, 손실보상제도의 이념과 목적, 권리구제의 실효성 등에 비추어 공법상 당사자소송이 가장 적합한소송형식이란 결론을 도출하였다. The Loss compensation provision was established as the revision of Act on the Performance of Police officers’s Duties(hereinafter as ‘APPD’) in 2013. That reason is to compensate on property loss happened by the lawful performance of Police officers’s duties. This revision can protect the right of people and make it possible to police officer perform his duty positively and possessively. 63) Inherently, the loss compensation transfer the special sacrifice by invasion on the right of one’s property due to the public need to the public burden. Therefore, it is a fact that there are many difficulties to quote the existing theories of the loss compensation to APPD. In this paper’s early stage, I dealt with the content that it is related to the loss compensation procedure of APPD, for example, the requirement, criterion and cash level, request method, a kind of the decision of police commissioner and etc. By the way, the applicant cannot be satisfied with a decision of police. In case the applicant disobeys a decision of police commissioner, it makes a problem whether he(she) has to quarrel in any lawsuit form. There are lots of individual laws stipulating the loss compensation but legal precedents regarding these are not unified. And there is not conformity case about the appeal method. Consequently, the way of the Party lawsuit (Parteiprozess) is most appropriate, however, I explained the related content because the possibility of the appeal litigation or civil suit remained. And in case of selecting the lawsuit type in the wrong way, I examined the action which the party and court could take. I expect a development of the loss compensation system, and wish this paper contribute to deepen the understanding of police officers and to solve the difficulties of police practical affairs.

소년의 구속을 필요로 하는 ‘부득이한 경우’

황순평(Hwang, Soon Pyong),김혁(Kim, Hyeok) 경찰대학 경찰학연구편집위원회 2015 경찰학연구 Vol.15 No.4

형사소송법이 정하는 구속의 요건은 범죄혐의의 상당성과 구속사유의 구비이다. 여기에 소년법은 “소년에 대한 구속영장은 부득이한 경우가 아니면 발부하지 못한다.”고 규정하여 소년의 구속을 더욱 제한하고 있다. 그러므로 범죄소년을 구속하려면 일반적 구속요건의 충족 외에 그것이 ‘부득이한 경우’일 것을 요한다. 이와 같이 소년의 구속에는 성인보다 엄격한 가중요건을 두고 있으므로, 이론상 소년의 구속비율이 성인의 구속비율을 상회하기는 어렵다. 그럼에도 통계상 확인되는 수치는 소년이 성인을 상당히 앞지르고 있는 것으로 나타나고 있다. 소년에 대한 구속제한 규정의 존재에도 불구하고, 법과 현실 사이에 괴리가 발생하는 이유는 ‘부득이한 경우’가 별다른 법적 효력 없이 공허한 수사(修辭)로 전락한 사정과 무관하지 않다. 그러한 사정 하에서 주거부정, 도망 또는 증거인멸의 염려라는 구속사유와 보다 친숙한 소년범의 특성상, 소년의 구속이 성인보다 쉽게 승인될 수밖에 없다. 그러나 구속의 폐해는 소년의 경우에 더욱 심각하므로 형사절차에서 소년의 구속은 가급적 피해야 한다. 반면, 그렇다고 하여 범죄혐의의 상당성과 구속사유까지 갖추고 있는 소년을 부득이한 경우가 아니라면서 그대로 석방하기에도 난점이 있다. 이와 같은 딜레마를 해결하는 방안으로 본고에서는 일본 소년법을 참고하여 ‘구속에 대신하는 임시조치’라는 제도의 신설을 제안하였다. 이를 통해 소년의 구속을 줄이는 동시에 형사사법과 소년사법의 조화와 균형을 달성할 수 있다. The Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that the court may detain the defendant when there is reasonable ground to suspect that he has committed a crime and he falls under the legal requirements. In addition to those requirements, the Juvenile Act requires another strict condition that a juvenile warrant of detention shall not be issued unless the circumstances unavoidably necessitate it. Therefore, the detention rate of juvenile offenders cannot be higher than that of adult criminals theoretically. However, as a matter of fact, according to the statistics, it has been way more frequent for the juvenile offenders to be detained than adult criminals for the last few years. The reason why the statistics is inconsistent with the reality is that the strict rule for detention, ‘under unavoidable circumstances’, which the Juvenile Act stipulates, has not been working in the criminal procedure of detaining juvenile offenders so far. Specifically, it can be easy for investigators like police to detain juvenile offenders who are more applicable to the legal requirements for detention than adult criminals. * Head of Public Safety Department, Police Training Institute. ** Professor, Korean National Police University. To overcome this contradictory reality, the detention of juvenile offenders should be limited under strict condition because the detention might affect the rehabilitation for them badly. One the other hand, another problem is that legal limitation on the detention can allow juvenile offenders to get free easily even though they commit serious crimes. Therefore, this study suggests the practical procedure, ‘Temporary measures instead of the detention’, which is adopted from Japan’s Juvenile Act, to resolve those problems and other related issues. Through the suggested system, I surely expect that the detention rate of juvenile offenders reduce as time goes by, and criminal justice and juvenile justice can be balanced eventually.

수사기관의 정보비공개결정에 대한 피해자의 불복수단

황순평 ( Soon-pyong Hwang ) 한국경찰법학회 2016 경찰법연구 Vol.14 No.1

Crime victims should be regarded, protected and granted certain rights or legal positions in the criminal proceeding. Most of all, it would be important that crime victims should be provided with the information of their cases at the stage of criminal investigation. Therefore, Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that a prosecutor shall, promptly upon receiving an application from victims, notify the victims of whether the indictment has been instituted for the crime, the time and place of trial, the result of trial, and the fact about detention such as whether the criminal suspect or the criminal defendant is detained or released. And Crime Victim Protection Act is putting the similar provision. One the other hand, the investigational information, if disclosed, is feared to infringe of the secrets or rights to individual privacy and do harm the safety of life or body, or the serenity of life of an interested person in a case, and carries a reasonable probability of making it difficult to perform duties or infringing of the rights of any criminal defendant to stand a fair trial. At present, when a victim is dissatisfied with a decision made by investigation agency in connection with information disclosure, he may raise an objection. And he may file an administrative appeal under the conditions as proscribed by the Administrative Appeal Act or file for an administrative hearing under the conditions as proscribed by the Administrative Litigation Act. However, the administrative appeal methods as in the above have several problems that are originated from the nature of information disclosure or the limit of the administrative litigation. Therefore, this study suggests the Quasi-Complaint that victims may file an application for revocation of or alteration to the disposition with the competent court corresponding with the investigation agency.

논 문 : 경미범죄의 현행범인 체포에 따른 법적 쟁점

황순평 ( Soon Pyong Hwang ) 한국경찰법학회 2015 경찰법연구 Vol.13 No.2

Any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant(Criminal Procedure Act, Article 212). The provisions of Article 212 shall apply to the flagrant offender punishable with fine not exceeding 500,000 won for the maximum amount, disciplinary lockup, or minor fine only where his dwelling is uncertain(Article 214). That the offender’s dwelling is uncertain is broader concept which includes that the offender has no fixed dwelling as the cause for detention. It has to be considered as the time of arrest not when police officer exert the power on the offender, but when police officer notify the offender of the gist of the suspected crime, the reason for arrest, and the right to appoint defense counsel, and give an opportunity to vindicate himself. A police officer who has arrested a flagrant offender should notify the legal representative and others of the fact of arrest, and that they have a right to file a petition for reviewing the legality of the arrest. Provided, in case there are no person getting an designation, it is not necessary to notify. The police release on warning is a suspension of booking offender who is in no need of the punishment in minor cases. And the arrest of flagrant offender means that police officer recognize a crime and book the suspect. So, police officer cannot release a offender after arrested him as a flagrant offender. With the same reason, police officer cannot impose a penalty on a offender and give notice to the offender to pay the penalty after arrested him as a flagrant offender. Therefore, in case of the arrest of flagrant offender in minor cases, police officer should claim the summary judgments or transfer the relevant document and evidence to a public prosecutor. In case of claiming the summary judgments, police officer has not to complete an internal investigation or transfer a case to a public prosecutor under non-indictment idea for the right of arraignment is none. Also, it does not call for warrant in fingerprinting to determine the identity of the arrested offender.

정당한 파업의 형사면책에 관한 고찰

황순평 ( Soon Pyong Hwang ),김동혁 ( Dong Hyuk Kim ) 한국경찰학회 2015 한국경찰학회보 Vol.17 No.4

쟁의행위로서의 파업이 정당하려면 단체교섭의 주체로 될수 있는 자가 근로조건 향상을 위한 노사간의 자치적 교섭을 조성하기 위하여, 사용자가 근로조건 개선요구에 대하여 단체교섭을 거부하였을 때 개시하되 특별한 사정이 없는 한조합원의 찬성결정 등 법령이 정한 절차를 거쳐야 하고, 사용자의 재산권과 조화를 이루고 폭력의 행사에 해당되지 않아야 한다. 이와 같이 주체, 목적, 시기·절차, 수단·방법 측면 모두에서 정당성 있는 파업은 그로 인해 사용자의 업무가 방해되거나 국민의 불편 등 사회경제적 혼란을 초래하더라도 형사처벌의 대상이 되지 않는다는 점에 이론의 여지가 없다. 다만 그것이 업무방해죄의 구성요건해당성을 배제하기 때문인지 아니면 위법성을 조각시킨 결과인지에 관하여는 학설상 견해 다툼이 있다. 헌법재판소와 대법원은 종래 위법성조각설을 취해 왔으나, 각 2010년 결정과 2011년 전원합의체 판결을 통하여 구성요건해당성 배제설로 입장을 선회하였다. 그러나 파업은 그 속성상 위력에 의한 업무저해성을 내포하는 것이므로, 정당한 파업이 업무방해죄의 구성요건에조차해당하지 않는다는 취지에는 동조하기 곤란하다. 이러한 판례의 태도는 범죄론 체계의 정합성을 몰각시키는 것이며 노조법 제4조의 입법취지와 문리해석에 반하는 것이다. 따라서 정당한 파업은 업무방해죄의 구성요건에 해당하지만 정당행위로서 위법성이 조각된다는 위법성조각설을 지지한다. In this paper, first, I examine the meaning and the criteria of rightful industrial action, and define the scope and limits of validity of the industrial action which is recognized as constitutional rights. Then, I overview the conflict of theory and the judgement trends of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court for knowing the reason that rightful strike is not criminal, whether lacks the configuration requirement of the crime or lacks illegality. Finally, based on the comparative review of other justification reasons of Penal code, I determine that right strike is not punished because there is no illegality of the crime. As a rule, industrial action is met the configuration requirements of the crime of business interference of Penal code. Because, strike is to inhibit the user``s business operations under the purpose of imposing a claim, through exercising power in the event of collective denial of labor providing, and the crime of business interference disrupts the work of man by power. This interpretation is inevitable in the current Penal code. However, this interpretation is to extend the scope of the strike that would apply the crime of business interference, and concerns that could discourage the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed right of collective action in fact. But, if justification for a strike would be widen, by expanding the scope of industrial action that recognizes the legitimate acts, it can be relieve those concerns.

즉결심판제도의 운용 실태에 대한 고찰

김동혁 ( Dong Hyuk Kim ),황순평 ( Soon Pyong Hwang ) 한국경찰법학회 2015 경찰법연구 Vol.13 No.1

Speedy trial are very important values of criminal procedure in terms of finding truth and Due process of law. The constitution guarantees the right to receive the Speedy trial as the fundamental haman rights. Summary judgment actualizes the principle of the Speedy trial. But there is critical opinion that Summary judgment sacrifice other values because of pursuing the Speedy trial. 31) Summary judgment aims at the crime in which an evidence is clear and which the nature of a crime is slight. A prosecutor doesn’t prosecute, and the chief of police station claims a trial to a court directly. The judge of the court can sentence a defendant to the punishment including the fine of under 200,000 wons, detention, or a minor fine. The chief of police station executes the penalty which the judge of the court sentenced. This paper’s purpose solves the practical affairs on trouble which police officers in charge of Summary judgment have experienced. So, I implemented questionnaire study about them, and I arranged and opend that results and analyzed the results of survey and presented substantial solutions. Survey is as follows. The maintenance or abolition of Summary judgment(1), Who should exercise the right of prosecution of Summary judgment(2), Subject of Summary judgment(3 to 5), The abuse of the rignt of prosecution of Summary judgment(6), The absence of the defendant and method of the trial(7 to 10). I wish this paper contributes to the operating system and that the unity of summary conviction.