검사의 수사 논증과 추론의 구조 고찰-가추와 역행추론을 중심으로

김대근 한국형사정책연구원 2016 형사정책연구 Vol.105 No.-

It is the judge’s important task to determine guilty or innocence by finding a substantial truth in the criminal court, however, the prosecutor also has an important responsibility. Considering the enforcement of trial-base principle and strict judgments on evidences in the trial is more enforced, a prosecutor’s ability to find a substantial truth needs to be reinforced. This article tries to find a way how a prosecutor can effectively present his reasoning through thorough proofing in the trial and tries to suggest the abduction and retroduction, as a prosecutor’s practical demonstration of a prosecutor’s arguments, in order to find a substantial truth. To generalize a prosecutor’s arguments, it can be schematized like this: ①obtaining/ finding the evidences, ②setting a hypothesis, which can fully explain the evidences, ③verifying the hypothesis, and ④drawing a conclusion. Furthermore, in order to find a substantial truth suggested by evidences, a prosecutor has to assume the various premises, which might be the cause of the evidences or might be related in a specific way and go through various stages to see whether those premises are the truth or not. In these stages, abduction and retroduction can be used as a prosecutor’s distinct way of proving. The reason why I suggest those two is that the proving, based on the abduction and retroduction, is the same as how a prosecutor presents his arguments in the investigation: ①observing/finding the phenomenon, ②abduction-setting the hypothesis which can explain the phenomenon, ③retroduction-verifying the hypothesis, and lastly, ④drawing a conclusion. A prosecutor’s distinct inferences and arguments work the best in the situation when there is no direct evidences and he or she has to prove the truth by indirect evidences only. First of all, A prosecutor ensures a number of circumstantial evidences, and from those evidences, the prosecutor has to confirm circumstantial facts by using indirect evidences, through the comprehensive considerations. After that, a prosecutor judges whether those major inferred facts, from the thorough observation and analysis, are reasonable. In order for evidences, which a prosecutor has collected and submitted for a trial, to give a firm belief to the judge, a prosecutor’s reasoning has to be solid enough so that nobody could doubt from the beginning of the investigation stage. Of course, a prosecutor should not collect evidences only to support his own hypothesis. He or she also needs to be prepared for the defendent’s doubts, which might be presented in a trial and presents contrary evidences. For this, a prosecutor has to objectify his or her hypothesis and keeps in mind that there might be a possibility that his or her hypothesis is wrong. A prosecutor needs to self- critically verify the fact in the investigation stage and also needs to refer England’s standardized investigation model, PEACE (Planning/prepartion, Engaging of and Explaining to the suspect, Account from the suspect, Closure, Evaluation), as an effective investigation technique, in order to discover the truth in the investigation. 형사재판에서 실체적 진실발견은 유무죄를 판단하는 법관에게 중요한 과제이지만, 검사에게도 그에 못지않은 책무가 있다. 특히 공판중심주의 강화와 증거판단 엄격화의 추세로 실체적 진실 발견을 위한 검사의 역량은 더욱 강화되어야 필요가 있다. 본 논문은 검사가 공판정에서 철저한 논증과정을 거치고 이를 효과적으로 공판정에 현출할 수 있는 방법을 모색함으로서 검사의 고유한 논증과 추론의 방법으로서 가추 및 역행추론이라는 실체적 진실 발견을 위한 실천적 논증을 제시하고자 한다. 검사의 논증을 일반화 시켜보면 ①단서의 발견(또는 입수), ②단서를 설명할 수 있는 가설 설정, ③가설의 검증, ④결론의 도출이라는 단계로 도식화할 수 있을 것이다. 그리고 단서가 나타내는 실체적 진실을 발견하기 위해서는 단서의 원인이 되거나 관련이 있을 수 있는 이면의 여러 가지 전제사실들을 추정하고 그것이 진실인지를 검증하는 과정을 거쳐야만 한다. 바로 여기서 가추 및 역행추론은 검사의 고유한 논증 방법으로 정립할 수 있다. 가추와 역행추론에 기반한 논증 과정은 ①현상의 관찰(또는 발견), ②현상을 설명할 수 있는 가설 설정-가추, ③가설의 검증-역행추론, ④결론의 도출이라는 단계를 거친다는 점에서 검사가 수사과정에서 추론을 전개하는 것과 동일한 양상을 같기 때문이다. 검사의 고유한 추론과 논증은 특히 직접 증거가 전혀 없는 상황에서 오로지 간접 증거에 의하여 사실을 입증해야 경우에 빛을 발한다. 검사는 먼저 다수의 간접 증거를 확보하고, 간접 증거들로부터 간접사실들을 확정하거나 간접 증거들 상호간의 종합적인 고찰을 통해 간접사실들을 확정한 후, 확정된 간접사실들로부터 주요사실들을 추론한다. 그리고 경험칙을 매개로 하여 치밀한 관찰이나 분석을 통해 추론된 주요사실들이 합리적인지 판단하게 된다. 이처럼 검사가 수집하고 제출한 증거에 대해 법관이 합리적인 의심이 없는 정도의 심증을 갖기 위해서는 검사의 논증이 수사단계에서부터 합리적인 의심이 없는 정도로 논증되어야 한다. 물론 검사는 수사과정에서 스스로가 세운 가설을 뒷받침하는 증거를 수집하는데 그쳐서는 안 된다. 공판 과정에서 제기될 수 있는 피고 측의 의심에 대해서도 미리 예견을 하고, 반증에 대비할 수 있는 준비를 하는 것 역시 필요하다. 이를 위해서는 검사 역시 자신의 가설을 객관화하고 합리적으로 가설이 잘못되었을 수 있는 가능성을 염두에 둘 필요가 있다. 검사는 수사를 하는 과정에서 자기비판적으로 사실을 확인할 필요가 있으며, 수사에 있어서의 진실 발견을 위한 효과적인 조사기법으로 영국의 표준화된 조사 모델인 PEACE(계획/준비 Planning/preparation, 개시와 피의자에의 설명 Engaging of and explaining to the suspect, 피의자의 진술 Account from the suspect, 종료 Closure, 평가 Evaluation) 기법을 참조할 필요가 있을 것이다.

프랑스 검찰의 사법경찰 통제와 그 시사점

김영기(Kim, Young-Kee) 한국형사소송법학회 2011 형사소송 이론과 실무 Vol.3 No.2

프랑스의 경우 판사(juges)와 검사(procureurs)는 모두 법무부 소속으로 사법관(magistrats, 판사는 ‘magistrat du siège’, 검사는 ‘magistrat du parquet’라 부르기도 한다)으로 통칭되며 판사, 검사는 일종의 보직개념이어서 상호간 직역이동이 활발하다. 프랑스 형사소송법 제12조는‘사법경찰권은 검사의 지휘 아래(sous la direction du Procureur de la République) 사법경찰관, 공무원, 사법경찰리가 이를 수행한다’고 규정하여 사법경찰관, 공무원 및 사법경찰리가 사법경찰권의 행위 주체임을 인정하면서도 사법경찰은 검사의 보조기관(organ auxiliaire)으로서 검사의 지휘를 받아 수사할 뿐 사법경찰의 독자적인 수사권은 인정하고 있지 아니하다. 프랑스의 경우 검사는 법률상 명문의 근거가 마련되어 있음에도 직접 수사를 하지 않는다. 기본적으로 사법경찰은 검사의 보조자 역할을 수행할 뿐이며 사법경찰이 할 수 있는 수사도 그 종류에 따라 요건이 제한되어 있다. 검사가 수사의 주재자로서 사법경찰의 상관처럼 실질적으로 이들을 지휘할 수 있는 힘은 사법경찰에 대한 수사권 부여, 자격정지 및 취소권, 평정권, 징계요구권 등을 검찰이 보유하고 있는데서 나온다. 프랑스 검사는 사법관으로서, 경찰과 경쟁하는 위치에 있지 아니하다. 프 랑스의 검찰 제도는 독일, 일본을 거쳐 우리에게 전수되었다. 그렇다면 우리 검찰 역시 ‘준사법기관’으로서의 지위를 보유하고 있어야 할 것이나 국민들은 검찰을 ‘경찰보다 구성원들의 질적 수준이 조금 높은 수사기관’으로 인식하고 있을 뿐 사법경찰을 지휘하고 감독하여야 할 기관으로는 인식하고 있지 않은 듯하다. 최근 수사권 조정 논의 과정에서 드러난 것처럼, 경찰에 대한 검찰의 수사지휘가 양 기관 간 수사권 배분 정도의 문제로 취급된 것이 이를 반증하는 것 같다. 프랑스 검찰의 사법경찰 통제제도에 착안하여, 수사는 원칙적으로 사법경찰이 담당하고, 검찰은 사법경찰을 그들의 상관처럼 실질적으로 지휘하며, 검찰의 역량을 넓혀 명실상부한 공익의 대표자로서 검찰의 기능을 강화하는 방향을 제안해보았다. 10년 후 미래 사회는 지금과 같지 않을 것이다. 이에 대한 논의가 깊이 있게 전개되기를 기대한다. French Code of Criminal Procedure Article 12 defines that 'the judicial police power shall be executed by law enforcement officers, government officials, law enforcement assistant officers under the direction of prosecutors (sous la direction du Procureur de la République)'. While acknowledging that Law enforcement officers, government officials and law enforcement assistant officers are the principal agents of the judicial police power, the judicial police is the subsidiary of prosecutors (organ auxiliaire) only to investigate with the command of prosecutors as independence of investigation authority of the judicial police is not recognized. In France, prosecutors do not carry out direct investigation even though there is the legal written evidence available to them. By default, the judicial police performs only the role of assistant of prosecutors and the scope of investigation that the judicial police can do is limited depending on the type of requirements. Prosecutors as the presiding officer of investigation, the practical power for prosecutors to lead the judicial police as its superior stems from the legal power, such as being able to grant investigation authority to the judicial police, suspension of qualification, right of rescission, the right to command peace, the right to ask for suspension, that the prosecution have. French prosecutor is a judicial officer with whom the police are not in a position to compete. The prosecution system in France is transmitted to us through Germany and Japan. Thus, our prosecutors should also possess a status of 'quasi-legal institutions'. But the people may have a perception of the prosecution as 'law enforcement agency with the quality of members being little higher than the police", they do not recognize that the prosecution is an institute to lead and oversee the judicial police. As evidenced in the recent discussions of adjusting investigation authority, it is proved that the prosecution's investigation direction over the police is treated as a problem at the degree of distribution of investigation authority between the two organizations. As noting French prosecutors' judicial police control system, the role of investigation is, in principle, taken by judicial police and ② prosecutors practically oversee judicial police like their superiors, and by expanding the capacity of prosecutors, it is suggested to strengthen prosecutors' functionality as de facto representatives of public interest. The future society may not be the same as today after 10 years. It is expected that in-depth discussions on this topic be unfolded.

객관의무의 구체화와 검사의 권한통제

박성민 韓國刑事法學會 2012 刑事法硏究 Vol.24 No.3

The prosecutor is the sovereign institution with strong power in criminal procedure. Prosecutors have right of investigation, indictment and enforcement of trial in criminal procedure. Especially, prosecutor’s right of investigation and indictment is the strong power to restrict citizen’s freedom in the viewpoint of punishing power of the sovereignty, in parallel with the jurisdictional right of the Court. However recently, such powers of prosecutor are regarded as the subject to be controlled. Furthermore, it is also a problem that there are no proper alternatives available to control and contain the powers of prosecutors. Existing alternatives are not suitable to become reasonable measures due to the concern that another powered institution may be created thereby. Therefore, it is regarded that the measures to control prosecutor’s powers need to be pursued internally within the Public Prosecutors’ Office. In other words, it would be meaningful to introduce stronger responsibilities and judicial control on breach thereof as the internal control measure, rather than by check and balance by other institution as external control. In this perspective, this study intends to focus on objective responsibility of prosecutors. Prosecutors are subject to objective responsibility while having strong power in their status as representatives of public interest as well as the advocate of human right. If objective responsibility can control prosecutors’ powers, this responsibility may be regarded as the internal control measure sufficiently workable. The problem with this alternative is that the concept on objectivity responsibility of prosecutor is not clearly established in legal procedure law, hence the scope thereof is only limitedly acknowledged and judicial control is in weak situation on breach thereof. Henceforth this study clarifies the concept of objective responsibility, expands and strengthens the scope of acknowledgement thereof, and provide the sanctions on breach thereof, so that objective responsibility of prosecutor is confirmed as eligible to become the internal control measure of prosecutors’ powers.

경죄사건의 신속처리를 위한 검사직무대리제도의 개선방안

정영덕 ( Young Duck Jung ) 안암법학회 2011 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.36

Term 3, Clause 27 of the Constitution regulates ``All nations have the right to face the trial rapidly.``, but as the burden of Public Prosecution`s Office for the cases in our country is likely to be too heavy at present, the rapid service for the criminal procedure can not be sufficiently bestowed on the nations with the prosecutors` manpower only, and it can not be guaranteed that the substantive investigation for protection of the human rights of the nation is sufficient and it can not be also said that the prosecutor`s direction of investigation for the important case is sufficient and detailed. Therefore, as the alternative for the above outstanding matter, it was reviewed over the necessity and improvement plan of the probational prosecutor system, which is being executed in Public Prosecution`s Office nationwide. In concrete, as for the direction of investigation to supplement the summary case after being sent to the police station, as it is the most essential for the probational prosecutor to decide whether to prosecute it, the regulations to be bestowed within the summary record being sent shall be newly established, and as it seems that this point becomes the opportunity for the police officer also to supplement the case record through this. Besides this, the matters for separation of the minor offense/grave offense, installation of Public Prosecution`s Office in city and gun in case the city/gun court is faced, constitutional matter of the probational prosecutor and guarantee of its position shall be also discussed in the deeper way. And as for the claim for seizure/search warrant of the probational prosecutor, the claim to demand shall be legislatively bestowed through the chief prosecutor in charge but it will be proper for the necessity for such claim to be verified during the approval of the chief prosecutor in charge. Also, relative to the qualification of the probational prosecutor, it will be recommended to establish and execute the educational course regularly, and as for the scope of the probational prosecutor`s duty, as it is true that the name of crime of the summary case is being widen to increase the business concentration of the prosecutor, it seems that its actualization plan will be necessary by changing the regulations actually in the legislative aspect. It is considered that as for the introduction matter of the deputy prosecutor system, as the prosecution administrator system treating the prosecutor`s business is absolutely supported, rather than the deputy prosecutor system, like Japan, our case will not be different. Finally, it is true that the nations worry about the protection of human rights, but this study thought over that the improvement plan to overcome some outstanding matters and to make the rapid and proper treatment of the case with the sufficient experience and the investigation capacity of the probational prosecutor.

수사권 제한 입법에 대한 검사의 권한쟁의심판청구의 적법성

이황희 한국비교공법학회 2022 공법학연구 Vol.23 No.4

The case in which the prosecutors request for adjudication on competence dispute over legislation that restricts their investigative powers has considerable significance in constitutional theory as it includes several issues that have not been treated by the Constitutional Court so far. In particular, several complex legal issues arise regarding the availability of prosecutors' requests for that adjudication. Accordingly, this paper focuses on whether prosecutors have standing, whether the prosecutors' investigative powers are on a constitutional basis or a legal basis, and whether the prosecutors can contest procedural flaws in that legislation. The Constitution grants prosecutors the power to apply for a warrant. If this is interpreted as meaning that the Constitution recognizes the existence and role of prosecutors as a state institution, it is believed that the standing of the prosecutors in competence dispute can be affirmed. However, since the prosecutors' investigative powers are legal, not constitutional, there is no possibility of being violated by legislative acts. Another question is whether prosecutors could contest procedural flaws in legislation restricting investigative powers, but it seems they could not. The problem of procedural flaws in legislation can be examined only after confirming the existence of the restricted powers. Then the stage of examining the legitimacy of the restriction opens. However, the restricted power cannot be confirmed in this case. In addition, according to the Constitutional Court Act, the legislative act must be declared invalid for prosecutors to claim that the legislative act has violated the investigative power in this case. In this regard, prosecutors are in a challenging position to contest that flaws. Therefore, it would be unjustified for the prosecutor to request for adjudication on competence dispute over legislation restricting the investigative power. 검사가 자신의 수사권을 제한하는 입법에 대하여 권한쟁의심판을 청구한 사건은 그간 헌법재판소에서 판단되지 않았던 여러 쟁점들을 포함하고 있어 헌법이론적으로 큰 의미를 가진다. 특히 심판청구의 적법 여부와 관련하여 여러 까다로운 법적 문제들이 제기되는데, 이에 따라 본고는 검사가 당사자능력을 가지는지, 검사의 수사권이 헌법적 권한인지 아니면 법률적 권한인지, 검사가 입법절차상 하자를 다툴 수 있는지에 관한 문제를 검토해 보고자 했다. 헌법은 검사에게 영장신청권한을 부여하고 있는데, 이것을 헌법이 국가기관으로서 검사의 존재와 역할을 인정한다는 의미로 해석한다면 검사의 권한쟁의심판의 당사자능력을 긍정할 수 있다고 본다. 그러나 검사의 수사권은 헌법적 권한이 아니라 법률적 권한이므로 입법행위에 의해 침해될 가능성이 없다. 검사가 수사권을 제한하는 입법의 절차적 하자를 다툴 수 있는지 문제되는데, 이 역시 어려울 것으로 보았다. 입법절차상 하자 문제는 제한되는 권한의 존재를 확인한 이후 그 제한의 정당성을 심사하는 단계에 이르러 비로소 심사할 수 있으나, 법률적 권한은 입법행위에 의해 제한될 수 없으므로 제한되는 권한 자체를 확인할 수 없다. 또한, 헌법재판소법에 따르면 검사가 이 사건 입법행위로 수사권이 침해되었음을 주장하기 위해서는 그 입법행위가 무효로 선언되어야 하는데, 이를 위해서는 국회의원 권한의 침해를 먼저 다투어야 하므로 이 측면에서도 검사가 입법절차상 하자 문제를 다투기 어렵다. 따라서 수사권을 제한하는 입법에 대한 검사의 권한쟁의심판청구는 부적법할 것이다.

검사직무대리제도의 현황과 문제점에 대한 검토

박민우 경찰대학교 2012 경찰학연구 Vol.12 No.2

The Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office introduced probational prosecutor system at 2001, Sep. 1, and expanded this system all over the country at 2005, Feb. Probational prosecutor’s main duty is prosecution about minor criminal case. In spite of it's importance in the criminal justice system, there are very few studies about probational prosecutor system up the present. So, this study would focus on the whys of it’s introduction, legal basis, present state and problems. A law about probational prosecutor system has existed since the liberation of Korea, but had been a law that had become a dead letter until a recent date. However it was recently raised as a solution to the problem that the lack of prosecutors caused, namely excessive work. In the end it began at 2001, Sep. 1. Probational prosecutors has their own office room and they are aided by assigned detectives as prosecutors, but they can’t command a judicial police officer to investigate a criminal case, also they can’t request warrant. Prosecution is essentially authority of prosecutor. Term 3, Clause 12 of the constitution regulate ‘only prosecutor can request warrant to the court’. If so, it correspond to the spirit of the constitution for only prosecutor, not probational prosecutor, having authority of prosecution, because authority of prosecution is more intrinsic prosecutor’s duty and authority than requesting warrant. Probational prosecutor system exists on the unreasonable premise that prosecutors have to conduct only major criminal case. Eventually, prosecutors in Korea have excessive influence beyond the law and system. Abolition of Probational prosecutor system is one method for reformation of the prosecution, because it would correct prosecutor’s excessive power and status.

대한제국기 검사제도에 관한 연구

박석정 한국교정학회 2018 矯正硏究 Vol.28 No.2

During the great han empire period, the courthouse had been opened as the first time in our history, and the judicial and the administration were separated. At this time, the prosecutor system that was responsible for the criminal investigation and its prosecution had been introduced. Initially an administrative officer has been doubled as a prosecutor, but after 1905, the population of prosecutor who studied in Japan for laws and institutions of the West has been gradually increased. At that time, the prosecutor was conducting investigation of crimes and prosecution the case, and even had command authority over the police administration. The example of the differences in the role of prosecutor between the past and the present, the prosecutors in the past were able to release the arrested and detained prisoners, and also they were responsible for the trial for part of civil cases (i.e. the mountain lawsuit). Looking at the activities of prosecutor at the time of the great han empire period, there were a few role models to be eligible for preferred image of the prosecution in the present. Prosecutor, An Byeongchan was so fair to handle the cases, and he prevented local residents to go somewhere else. When the martyr, An Jungueon shot Ito Hirobumi, he was trying to take on the defense for the martyr, An Jungueon. Thereafter, prosecutor, An Byeongchan had committed his life to the independence movement for the liberation of the motherland. Prosecutor, Lee Jun who is famous as Hague emissary, showed his backbone that did not succumb to undue pressure by the superior. The prosecutor system in the great han empire period has the significance in that it has been initially introduced the prosecutor as an advocate of the public interest and prescribed most of the provisions of the current law on the rights and the duties of prosecutors. In those days, when the politicians was helplessly deprived the country to Japan, fair treatment and independent business spirit that prosecutors demonstrated were worth to be revisited. 대한제국기에는 우리 역사에서 최초로 재판소가 등장하여 사법과 행정이 분리되었다. 이때 범죄자를 수사하고 기소하는 역할을 하던 검사제도가 도입되었다. 처음의 검사는 행정관을 겸하기도 하였으나, 1905년 이후에는 일본에서 공부하여 서양의 법과 제도를 공부한 검사가 점차 많아졌다. 당시 검사는 범죄를 수사하고 기소하며, 사법경찰관리에 대한 지휘권을 가지고 있었다. 초기의 검사의 오늘날과 다른 점은 체포 구금된 수용자에 대한 석방권(保放權)을 가지고 있었다는 것을 들 수 있으며, 또한 일부 민사사건(산송) 등에서는 검사가 재판을 담당하기도 하였다. 대한제국기의 검사들의 활약을 살펴보면, 오늘날 바람직한 검찰상을 제고하는 모범이 되는 사람이 몇 명 있다. 안병찬 검사는 사건 처리가 너무 공명정대하여 해당 지역 사람들이 다른 곳으로 가지 못하게 막기도 하였으며, 안중근의사가 이토 히로부미를 저격하였을 때 안중군의 변호를 맡으려 하였다. 이후 안병찬은 독립운동에 투신하여 조국 해방을 위한 삶을 살았다. 헤이그 밀사로 유명한 이준 검사는 상관의 부당한 압력에 굴복하지 않는 기개를 보여 주었다. 대한제국기 검사제도는 공익의 대변자로서의 검사가 처음으로 도입되었다는 의미, 현행법상 검사의 권한과 의무의 대부분이 규정되었다는 의미가 있다. 당시 위정자들이 일제에게 속절없이 나라를 빼앗기고 있을 때, 검사들의 공정한 업무처리와 독립정신은 재조명할 가치가 있다 할 것이다.

사법경찰관에 대한 수사지휘검사의 범위에 관한 연구

오상지 경찰대학 경찰학연구편집위원회 2011 경찰학연구 Vol.11 No.2

The public prosecutor's authority to direct judicial police officers is prescribed in the article 196, clause 1 of the Criminal Procedure. According to the article 53 of Public Prosecutor's Office Law, the judicial police officer is obliged to obey the order of the “prosecutor concerned.”Generally, studies on the meaning of those two articles, which defines the basic relationship between police and prosecutor, reached a conclusion that there are two key factors in the articles; “the public prosecutor has the authority to direct judicial police officers in criminal investigation” and “the officers has to comply with prosecutor's orders”Based on the vertical relations, the prosecutor directly commands judicial officers in investigating criminal cases, including ones which may be, or shall be, done by the Office. However, not only scholars but even Police Agency has not raised any objection to the custom. To establish proper relationship between Police and Prosecutors, two studies should proceed the revision of the relevant articles; on the legal relation of the agencies by constructing Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecutor's Office Law in a different point of view, and on the current relation in the field. Changing focus in interpretation of Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecutor's Office Law, from the aspect of authority(the text of “the prosecutor's authority to criminal investigation and direction of judicial officers" in Criminal Procedure and Public Prosecutor's Office Law) to that of obligation(the text of “must investigate criminal cases" in Criminal Procedure), it is possible to construct laws about the relationship different from traditional one. It also is possible to limit the power of prosecutors by redefining "prosecutor with authority to direct judicial officers" and “prosecutor concerned.”The construction of law may differ from standpoints, and in reality, prosecutors have general and unlimited authority over judicial police officers, as is against "check and balance". At least, general authority over police officers should not be allowed. Thus, in the revision of Criminal Procedure led by Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform, it is necessary to limit the power of prosecutors with new provisions, clarifying that only the prosecutor in charge of a certain case has the authority to direct judicial officers engaging the case.

일반논문 : 검사윤리에 관한 고찰 -관련 규정 및 사례를 중심으로-

손창완 ( Chang Wan Sohn ) 연세법학회(구 연세법학연구회) 2013 연세법학 Vol.21 No.-

검사는 공익의 대표자로서 수사권, 수사지휘권, 수사 종결권을 가진 수사의 주체이고, 독점적인 공소제기 권한을 가진 공소권의 주체이고, 재판의 집행을 지휘 · 감독하 는 등 형사절차의 모든 단계에 있어 광범위한 권한을 가진 국가기관이다. 우리나라는 기소독점주의원칙에 따라 검사만이 공소제기권한을 가지고 있어 그 권한이 매우 큰 반면, 기소편의주의를 취하고 있어 검사가 그 권한을 행사함에 있어 광범위한 재량권을 가진다. 따라서 검사는 자신이 가진 광범위한 직무와 권한에 상응하는 특별한 책임 과 사명을 가진다. 즉, 검사는 범죄로부터 국민을 보호하고 「법의 지배」를 통하여 인 간의 존엄과 권리를 보장함으로써 자유롭고 안정된 민주사회를 구현하여야 할 책임이 있고, 공익의 대표자로서 국법질서를 확립하고 국민의 인권을 보호하며 정의를 실현 함을 그 사명으로 한다. 검사는 신분상 법무부에 소속된 공무원으로 위와 같은 직무와 권한을 행사함에 있어 원칙적으로 「국가공무원법」에 의한 규율을 받는다. 그런데 검사가 공익의 대표자로서 그 특별한 책임과 사명을 다 하기 위해서는 스스로 일반 공무원보다 더 높은 도 덕성과 윤리 의식을 갖추고 투철한 사명감과 책임감을 바탕으로 직무를 수행하여야 한다. 또한 검사는 일반 공무원과는 다른 특수한 직무를 수행하고 있으므로 일반 공직 윤리보다 특수한 직무 수행상 의무가 필수적으로 요구된다. 이러한 요구에 부응하기 위하여 법무부는 「검사윤리강령」을 제정하여 시행하고 있고, 「형사소송법」 및 「형법」 에서도 검사가 형사절차에서 준수하여야 할 각종 의무를 규정하고 있다. 그러나 최근 검사가 검사실에서 피의자와 성관계를 갖는 사건이 발생하고. 10억원 가량의 뇌물을 받은 검사가 구속되었으며 매형이 근무하는 법무법인에 사건을 알선한 혐의로 검사가 면직되는 사건이 잇달아 일어났다. 이러한 사건은 검사 전체에 대한 국민의 신뢰를 심각하게 훼손시켰으며, 이러한 사태의 원인으로 “통제 받지 않는 검사의 비대한 권력 과 검찰윤리의 부재가 원인”이라는 지적이 있다. 실제로 위와 같은 사건들은 거시적으로 보면 검찰 조직의 구조적인 문제가 기인한 것도 크지만, 미시적으로 검사 개인의 검사윤리의 부재가 상당한 원인이라고 보여진다. 그러나 이와 같은 검사윤리에 대한 현실적 문제점과, 검사가 가지고 있는 광범위하고 막강한 권한과 국민에게 미치는 영 향과 비교하여 ‘검사윤리’에 대해서는 거의 연구가 되지 않고 있다. 따라서 본 논문에 서는 현재 우리나라의 검사윤리규정에 대한 고찰을 통해 검사가 직무상 및 직무 외에 서 지켜야 할 윤리기준이 무엇인지를 구체적으로 규명하여 검사윤리를 바로 세우는데 필요한 토대를 마련하고자 한다. Prosecutor, as the representative of public interest, is a governmental organ that possesses extensive authority, such as the authority to initiate, command and terminate the investigation, to prosecute a case, and to command and supervise the execution of a trial. The Korean law upholds ``indictment monopolism`` which grants the prosecutor the sole authority to prosecute a case, as well as ``indictment expediency`` which leaves much at the discretion of the prosecutor. Thus, the prosecutor bears a special responsibility and mission that correspond to the vast range of authority. The prosecutor must safeguard the rights of each individual by establishing the order of 「Rule of Law」 and subsequently contribute to building a safe and stabilized society in which justice is pursued and the principles of democracy are respected. Prosecutors are public officials affiliated to the Ministry of Justice; their duties and authorities are subject to the 「State Public Officials Act」. However, prosecutors must acknowledge that they must abide by ethical standards stricter than those of any other public officials in order to meet the high level of responsibility enforced upon them. They must also conform to additional obligations as compared to other public officials, given the special tasks they perform. The Ministry of Justice has enacted the 「Code of Ethics for Prosecutors」, and the 「Criminal Procedure Law」 as well as the 「Criminal Law」 are already in effect, to appropriately respond to the aforementioned needs. However, the prosecution has suffered from a number of disgraceful events recently: a prosecutor has had sexual intercourse with the suspect in his office; a prosecutor was placed under arrest for being bribed of 100 million KRW; a prosecutor was dismissed for handing a case over to the law firm owned by his brother-in-law. Such events have made the general public question the credibility of the prosecution. Some have pointed out the "uncontrollably-large prosecution body and the absence of ethics" as the reason for such problem. Indeed the problem is partially due to the structural matters, but for a larger part, it seems like the absence of ethics for prosecutors is what counts more. Despite the significance of this problem and the influence it has on the people, hardly anything is being studied or researched. Hence this dissertation would lay out the foundation of ``ethics for prosecutors`` by analyzing the current rules and clarifying the ethical standards that prosecutors must comply with under any circumstance.

바람직한 검경 관계모델에 대한 연구

김동률(Kim Dong Lyoul) 한국공안행정학회 2014 한국공안행정학회보 Vol.23 No.4

수사절차에 있어 중요한 두 축인 검찰과 경찰은 형사소추를 위해 긴밀히 협조해야 하지만 경찰의 역할을 법적으로 감독해야 하는 검사의 임무와 경찰을 검사의 하위조직으로 규정한 법적 태도로 인해 두 기관은 갈등관계에 놓여 있다. 그러나 오늘날 범죄의 양적인 팽창은 모든 사건에 대한 검사의 통제를 불가능하게 할 뿐 아니라 급증하는 위험요소에 효율적으로 대응해야 하는 경찰의 활동에도 검사의 전반적 통제는 걸림돌이 되고 있다. 이제 변화된 범죄환경에 대응하여 두 기관 간에도 새로운 업무분장 내지는 관계설정을 통한 효율적 수사구조의 변화가 요구된다. 독일에서 두 기관 간의 바람직한 관계설정을 위한 논의는 한편으로는 ①조직적 통일성을 도모(검사의 역할을 공소제기ㆍ유지에 한정 / 수사경찰을 검찰에 예속 / 검사를 내무부에 소속)하는 방향으로, 다른 한편으로는 ②범죄의 경중에 따른 양 기관의 업무분장(중소범죄-경찰, 중대ㆍ주요범죄-검찰)과 경찰수사에 대한 적절한 통제수단을 입법화하는 방향으로 진행되었다. 전자의 논의가 경찰이나 검찰, 그리고 국가주의적 관점에서 일방적으로 주장된 반면, 후자의 논의는 실무적 현실을 입법화하면서 이에 따른 통제방안을 제시하고 있다는 점에서 양기관 모두의 공감대를 얻으며 두 차례에 걸친 형사소송법과 법원조직법 개정안으로 구체화되었다. 중소범죄에 있어 경찰에 독자적 수사를 보장하는데 대한 경찰수사의 통제방안으로 독일에서의 2001년 개혁안은 경찰의 정보풀에 대한 검사의 접근가능성을 제안하고 있는데 이는 긍정적으로 검토할 만 하다. 먼저 전체 범죄를 범죄의 경중에 따라 경미범죄, 중간급 범죄 및 중대범죄로 구분하여 경미범죄와 중간급범죄에 대한 경찰의 독자적 수사를 보장한다. 그리고 현재 우리 경찰이 운용하고 있는 형사사법정보시스템(KICS)에 대한 관할 지방검찰청 검사의 자유로운 접근을 허용함으로써 경찰이 수사 중인 사건에 대한 검사의 일반적 지휘를 가능하게 하여야 한다. 이로써 검찰은 경미범죄의 지휘에 대한 부담에서 벗어나 주요사건의 수사와 공소유지에 집중할 수 있고 경찰에게는 사기향상과 함께 담당영역에서의 책임 있는 수사를 기대할 수 있다. 효율적인 온라인 협력을 통한 신속한 사건처리는 관련자들의 기대와 형사소송의 이념에도 부합할 것이다. Prosecutors and police are the two chief players in investigative procedures and must cooperate closely with each other during criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, the two agencies are in conflict because of the prosecutor's duty to legally supervise the role of the police and the legal attitude that considers the police to bea substructure of the prosecutors. However, the quantitative expansion of crimes today makes it impossible for the prosecutors to control all the criminal cases. Moreover, the prosecutors' general control hinders the activities of the police who must efficiently cope with rapidly increasing risk factors. In response to the changed environment of crimes, it is now necessary to make the investigation structure more efficient by creating new divisions of duties and building new relationships between the two agencies. Discussions in Germany to establish a desirable relationship between the two agencies were carried out along the following directions: ①seeking organizational unity (limiting the role of prosecutors to prosecution and the sustainment of prosecution, placing investigative police under the authority of prosecutors, and assigning prosecutors to the Federal Ministry of the Interior) and ② dividing the duties of both agencies according to the severity of crimes (minor and less severe crimes to the police and major and more severe crimes to the prosecutors) and legalizing appropriate control measures for police investigations. The former was argued unilaterally from the perspectives of the police, prosecutors, and nationalists, whereas the latter provided control measures while legalizing the practical aspects. In this sense, the latter gained credibility from both the agencies and was thus concretized by the two amendments of the Criminal Procedure Code and Court Organization Act. As a control measure for police investigations to guarantee the police the right to engage in independent investigations in minor and less severe crimes, the 2001 amendment in Germany proposes that prosecutors be provided access to the information pool of the police, which can be reviewed as a positive change. First, all crimes are categorized based on their severity into minor offenses, mid-range crimes, and severe crimes. The right of the police to conduct independent investigations is guaranteed for minor offenses and mid-range crimes. Moreover, prosecutors must be allowed to control the general direction of the police investigation of the case by granting those from the Public Prosecutors' Office in the jurisdiction free access to the Korea Information System of Criminal-Justice Services (KICS), which is currently managed by the police. The prosecutors can thus focus on the investigation of the major cases and the sustainment of public prosecution without worrying about supervising minor offenses, while the police can conduct more responsible investigations in the relevant area while also boosting morale. Prompt handling of cases based on efficient online cooperation is also in accordance with the expectations of the relevant officials as well as the ideology of criminal procedure.