정부청사의 효율적 방호·보안관리를 위한 법령체계 정비방안에 대한 소고

신형석,Shin, Hyeong-Seok 한국경호경비학회 2019 시큐리티연구 Vol.- No.61

행정안전부장관의 '정부청사 보안관리'라는 권한행사는 조직법(정부조직법)만으로는 불충분하며, 이를 규율하기 위해서는 구체적인 내용과 한계를 설정하는 작용법(개별법)을 제정할 필요가 있다. 정부청사의 방호·보안 관련규정을 포함하고 있는 현행 「정부청사관리규정」(대통령령)은 법률상의 근거가 없는 법규명령으로 현 헌법체계와 부합되지 아니하며 그 법규성에 의문이 제기된다. 동 규정은 청사의 수급 및 관리, 청사의 취득 및 처분, 청사의 시설관리 등에 한정하여 규율하는 경우에는 공물관리법의 성격을 가진다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 동 규정은 '청사의 출입제한 및 통제' 등 시설보안 및 질서유지와 같은 행정청의 고권적 행위를 포함하고 있어 공물경찰법의 성격도 아울러 가지고 있다. 이에 대한 입법개선 방안으로 청사의 수급·배정 등을 규율하고 있는 「정부청사관리규정」은 그대로 유지하되, 청사의 출입관리 등 행정주체의 고권적 행위를 규정하고 있는 방호·보안관리와 관련된 조문은 법률로 상향 조정할 필요가 있다. 또한 정부청사 방호직무 수행자인 방호관(일반직공무원)의 법률상 권한 부재로 현장 방호직무 수행 간 대응력 확보에 한계가 있어 근거법 명시를 통한 방호인력의 직무권한 확보가 요청된다. 정부청사 방호·보안 관련 법률의 주요내용은 출입자의 행위제한, 방호인력의 직무권한 및 의무, 무기의 사용, 방호인력에 대한 교육·훈련, 벌칙 등과 같이 국민의 권리제한과 의무부담과 관계되는 법률유보사항은 개별법에 반드시 포함될 필요가 있다. The executive authority of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security on the 'management of security of the government complexes' is not sufficiently secured only with the organization law, the Government Organization Act. It is needed to establish an administrative actions law, an individual law that sets detailed contents and limitations of the executive authority to be stipulated. The current regulation, Regulation on the Management of the Government Complexes which is a Presidential Decree, is a legal decree that lacks a legal basis. The decree does not match with the current constitutional framework and raises the issue of its legality. The regulation may have the characteristics as a public property management law so far as it stipulates such matters as supply and maintenance management for the complexes, acquisition and disposition of complexes, facilities management of complexes, etc. However, the regulation includes high authority actions by an administrative organization, such as facilities security and order maintenance including restriction and control of access. This makes the regulation have the characteristics of a public property policy act as well. To supplement the legal framework for this situation, it is needed to level up some of the provisions relating to protection and security management to the level of an act as they stipulate high authority actions by an administrative organization. Other matters in the Regulation on the Management of the Government Complexes such as provisions relating to supply and allocation of complexes, etc. may be maintained as they are. In addition, the protection officers (general service official) does not own legal authority and have limitations on securing the capability to deal with the situations on implementing the on-site protection duty. Therefore, it is needed for the protection officers to secure protection duty-related authority by stipulating in a law. The main contents of the law on the protection and security of the government complexes may be those matters providing reservations on the implementations of laws. These may include the limitation of rights of and charging obligations on the people such as restricting the actions of personnel in the complex, rights and obligations of protection personnels relating to their duties, use of weapons, training of protection personnel, penal provisions, etc. These legal reservations should be included in an individual act.

국가기관 또는 지방자치단체에서 근무하는 청원경찰의 법적 지위에 관한 고찰

신형석(Shin, Hyeong-Seok),한주희(Han, Joo-Hee) 한국경호경비학회 2020 시큐리티연구 Vol.- No.65

청원경찰은 국가기관 또는 공공단체와 그 관리하에 있는 중요시설 또는 사업장 등에 배치하고 있으며, 특히 국가기관 또는 지방자치단체에서 근무하는 청원경찰의 청원주는그 시설 또는 사업장을 관리하는 장(長)이 관리책임자의 역할을 담당하고 있다. 국가기관 또는 지방자치단체에서 근무하는 청원경찰의 법률상 지위에는 여러 특수성이 있는데, ｢경찰관 직무집행법｣ 준용에 따른 경비구역 내 경찰관의 직무수행, 공무원연금 적용, ｢형법｣ 이나 그 밖의 법령에 따른 벌칙을 적용할 경우 공무원 간주, 경찰공무원에 준하는 보수및 수당지급 등 공무원과 유사한 법률상의 지위를 보유하고 있다. 아울러 청원경찰은 ｢근로기준법｣ 상 사용자와의 고용관계에 있는 일반근로자의 법률상 지위를 동시에 가지고 있다. 청원경찰은 근무의 공공성으로 인해 일정한 경우 공무원과 유사한 처우를 받고 있는 등으로 일반근로자와 공무원의 복합적 지위를 가지고 있다. 하지만 청원경찰의 임면주체는 국가 행정권이 아니라 ｢청원경찰법｣ 상의 청원주(사용자)로서 근로관계의 창설과 존속 등이 본질적으로 사법상 고용계약의 성질을 가지고 있다. 향후 국가기관 또는 지방자치단체에서 근무하는 청원경찰의 채용절차 개선, 보수 및 수당지급, 지휘체계 정립, 그리고 이들의 복합적 신분관계를 보다 명확히 하기 위한 제도적 개선이 요청된다. The registered security guards are assigned to state agencies or public organizations and to important facilities or workplaces under their control, and the petitioners of the registered security guards, especially those working for state agencies or local governments, are in charge of the role of the managing director of the facility or workplace. The legal status of registered security guards working for a state agency or a local government has many advantages, such as the performance of duties of police officers in a security area under the compliance of the Police Officers Duty Execution Act, the application of civil servants pensions, and the application of penalties under the Criminal Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the consideration of public officials, the payment of remuneration and allowances equivalent to police officers, etc. In addition, the registered security guard has the legal status of ordinary workers who are employed by the employer under the Labor Standards Act. The registered security guard has a complex status of general workers and public officials, such as receiving treatment similar to that of public officials in certain cases due to the public nature of his or her duties. However, the appointment and dismissal of a registered security guard is not a national administrative authority but a petitioner (user) under the Petition Police Act, and the creation and existence of labor relations are inherently legal employment contracts. In the future, improvement of recruitment procedures for registered security guards working for state agencies or local governments, payment of remuneration and allowances, establishment of a command system, and institutional improvements are requested to further clarify their complex status.

‘변호사가 아닌 자’의 사실조사행위 및 자료수집행위의 법적 성격에 대한 고찰

신형석(Shin Hyeong Seok) 경찰대학 경찰학연구편집위원회 2016 경찰학연구 Vol.16 No.3

현행 변호사법 제109조 제1호는 ‘변호사가 아닌 자의 법률사무취급’과 이에 대한 대가인 ‘이익의 수수’를 금지하는 규정을 두고 있다. 동조는 법률사무의 구체적인 유형으로 감정, 대리, 중재 등을 예시적으로 나열하고, 더 나아가 ‘그 밖의 법률사무’라는 포괄적 의미를 가진 일반조항을 활용하여 이를 규율하고 있다는 점에서 이러한 불확정개념의 의미를 보다 명확히 할 필요성이 요청된다. 왜냐하면, 동조 소정의 ‘법률사무’라는 불확정개념이 법관의 해석재량으로 지나치게 광의로 확대 해석되는 경우에는 동 규정에서 예시하고 있는 법률사무의 여러 유형뿐만 아니라, 아무런 법률상의 효과를 가져 오지 않는 일종의 ‘사실행위’까지도 변호사만이 행할 수 있는 법률사무의 범주에 포함시키게 되는 문제점이 발생할 가능성이 높기 때문이다. 이러한 점에서 변호사법 제109조 제1호 소정의 ‘법률사무’ 라는 불확정개념으로 초래될 수 있는 해석상의 혼란과 불분명한 법적 성격을 더욱 명확히 할 필요가 있다. 본고에서는 이러한 해석론에 착안하여 변호사가 아닌 자가 행하는 사실조사행위와 자료수집행위가 동조에서 말하는 ‘그 밖의 법률사무’의 범주에 포함되는지의 여부에 대한 검토를 주된 논의대상으로 하였다. 특히, 변호사가 아닌 자가 행하는 사실조사행위와 자료수집행위의 법적 성격에 대한 원심 및 대법원판결(대상판결)의 상반된 요지, 동조 소정의 범죄구성요건인 ‘변호사가 아닌 자의 법률사무취급’ 및 ‘이익수수’ 개념의 해석, 그리고 변호사가 아닌 자가 행하는 사실조사 등의 사적조사활동(私的調査活動)이 변호사법 제109조 제1호 소정의 ‘그 밖의 법률사무’에 해당한다는 대상판결의 해석재량 일탈에 대한 문제점을 비판하고, 아울러 이에 대한 필자의 재해석론을 제시하였다. Article 109, paragraph (1) of the Attorney-At-Law Act for the time being in force has a provision to prohibit the ‘provision of legal service by a person who is not an attorney-at-law’ and the ‘receipt of benefits’ in compensation for providing the legal service. Since the same Article illustrates examination, representation and arbitration, etc. as the specific type of legal service and further regulates it by making use of words having the comprehensive meanings of ‘other legal service’, it is required to have the necessity for more clarifying the meaning of this amorphous and broad concept because it is highly probable to cause some problems in which the amorphous and broad concept of the prescribed ‘legal service’ includes to the scope of the legal service a kind of ‘factual acts’, which don’t bring any legal effect, as well as several kinds of legal service to be listed as an example in the same provision in the event that it is excessively widely interpreted at the interpretation discretion of a judge. In this regard, it is required to clarify more any interpretation confusion and unclear legal characteristics which may be caused by the amorphous and broad concept of ‘legal service’ under the provision of Article 109, paragraph (1) of the Attorney-At-Law Act. In this study, having views on this interpretation theory, the main subject of discussion includes the review of whether the fact-finding activities and data collection activities as conducted by a person who is not an attorney-at-law are included to the scope of ‘other legal service’ as provided in the same Article. Specially, we criticize some problems such as the conflicting points between the original judgment and Supreme Court’s decision (object judgment) about the legal characteristics of the fact-finding activities and data collection activities as conducted by a person who is not an attorney-at-law; the interpretation of the concept about the ‘provision of legal service by a person who is not an attorney-at-law’ and the ‘receipt of benefits’, which are the elements of a crime as set forth in the same provision; and the deviation from the interpretation discretion of the object judgment in which any private investigation activities such as fact-findings to be conducted by a person who is not an attorney-at-law is covered by the other legal service’ as provided in Article 109, paragraph (1) of the Attorney-At-Law Act, and additionally presents the reinterpretation of this writer on them.

불문경고의 법적성격에 대한 고찰

신형석(Shin, Hyeong-Seok) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2013 法學論叢 Vol.20 No.1

공무원 근무관계에 있어 징계관련법령상 징계의 종류로서 명문화 되지 않았으나 현실적으로 징계처분에 준하는 성격을 가진 “불문경고”라는 불이익처분은 징계대상자가 징계위원회에 회부되어 ‘감봉’ 또는 ‘견책’에 해당되는 징계처분을 받을 경우 징계대상자의 기존 표창 등의 공적이 소관징계위원회 및 소청심사위원회 심리의 주된 징계감경사유가 되어 불문경고로 감경되는 형태로 이루어지고 있다. 이러한 징계처분에 준하는 성격을 가진 불문경고에 대한 논의는 불문경고가 징계관련법령에 명문화되지 않고 행정내부관계의 규범이라고 할 수 있는 행정규칙에 규정되어 운영되고 있다는 점, 그리고 이러한 행정규칙에 근거하여 행해진 불문경고라는 형태의 불이익처분이 행정소송법상 항고소송의 대상이 되는 처분성의 인정 여부가 논의의 중심이라고 할 수 있다. 행정규칙에 근거한 불문경고는 비록 징계관련법령상의 징계처분이라고 할 수는 없으나 징계대상자에 대한 침익적․부담적 처분으로서 항고소송상의 처분성을 인정하여 상대방에 대한 권리구제의 범위를 확대하려는 대법원의 판단은 일면 타당하다고 할 수 있으나, 여전히 불문경고의 근거규정이 행정규칙의 형태로서 운영되고 있는 한계가 있다. 또한 실질적으로 징계처분에 준하는 효과를 가지고 있는 불문경고의 현실적 운영상의 문제점으로서 징계대상자가 감봉 및 견책 상당에 해당하는 비위임에도 불구하고 징계관련법령상의 명문화된 징계의 종류를 선택하지 아니하고 징계대상자에 대한 징계처분의 우회적 회피, 관용적 차원에서 징계감경절차를 무시하고 불문경고가 남용될 수 있는 우려가 있으므로 소관징계위원회 및 소청심사위원회의 심리절차상 징계감경사유를 엄격하게 적용하여 공무원 근무관계에 있어서 징계제도운영의 투명성과 공정성 확보를 위한 노력이 필요하다고 할 것이다. An “unpublished warning”, which is not officially specified in disciplinary regulations applicable to government officials but regarded as one of the most widely used disciplinary actions, is usually given to a person who was submitted to disciplinary measures such as a ‘pay cut’ or ‘reprimand’ but who reduced the severity of disciplinary action from the governing disciplinary committee or petition review committee by resorting to her or his public recognitions such as awards. Discussions of unpublished warning are largely focused on the findings that an unpublished warning is not stipulated in applicable regulations but set forth in administrative regulations, which govern internal administrative relations. Another issue is whether an unpublished warning issued in accordance with administrative regulations can be considered an official disciplinary action that can be appealed pursuant to Administrative Litigation Act. An unpublished warning issued in accordance with administrative regulations is not considered a disciplinary action in accordance with disciplinary regulations, yet it clearly gives damage and burden to the disciplined person so that it is somewhat reasonable that the Supreme Court has ruled that petition is available for an unpublished warning by expanding the scope of administrative remedies. However, it still has some limitations because an unpublished warning is based on administrative regulations. Since an unpublished warning is considered a de facto disciplinary action which is practically equivalent to official disciplinary action, it can be abused to allow the punished person avoid disciplinary measures stipulated in applicable regulations and to bypass official penalty alleviation procedures. For such reasons, the governing disciplinary committee or petition review committee is required to make further efforts to ensure transparency and fairness in disciplinary programs for government officials by strictly applying relevant regulations in considering alleviation of penalty.

비정규직의 정규직화 정책기조 변화에 따른 국가중요시설 방호인력체계 개편 방안

신형석(Shin Hyeong-Seok) 한국경호경비학회 2018 시큐리티연구 Vol.- No.57

현 정부의 공공부문 ‘비정규직의 정규직화’라는 정책기조 변화를 반영하기 위해 현재 국가중요시설에서 시설방호 직무를 수행하고 있는 경비업체 소속 특수경비원의 정규직 전환이 진행되고 있다. 특히 국가중요시설로 지정되어 있는 주요 정부청사의 방호인력 구성은 방호직렬 공무원으로 구성된 방호관, 경비업체 소속의 특수경비원, 청원경찰, 경찰로 구성된 청사경비대 등 다양한 형태의 방호인력에 의해 방호직무가 수행되고 있다. 정규직 전환을 위해 국가중요시설에서 방호직무를 수행하고 있는 특수경비원의 직접고용을 위한 방식으로 특수경비원을 직접 고용하는 형태, 공단 설립을 통해 직접 고용하는 형태, 방호관(공무원)으로 신규 채용하는 형태, 자체경비원으로 직접 고용하는 형태, 청원경찰로 직접 고용하는 형태 등의 다양한 전환 방식이 논의되고 있다. 비정규직의 정규직화 정책기조 반영을 위해, 국가중요시설에서 방호직무를 수행하고 있는 경비업체 소속 특수경비원을 직접고용으로 전환하는 방식은 개별 국가중요시설의 방호환경, 방호인력운영 특성 등 여러 사정을 고려하여 신중하게 진행할 필요가 있다. 특히, 특수경비원의 정규직화 진행과정에서는 전환대상자인 특수경비원, 이해관계자들의 다양한 의견수렴이 반드시 선행될 필요가 있다. In order to reflect the Changes in this government’s policy of making Temporary Position employees into the Public sector permanent, special security guards from Private Security firms in the National Critical Facilities protection Position are moving forward transformation to Permanent Position. Especially, the organization of the protection personnel of the National Government Buildings designated as the National Critical Facilities is comprised of various types of security personnels, protective officer, special security guards from Private Security firms, Private police guards, police officers and these types of security personnels protect for the Government Buildings. Recently, The Government Security planning division is discussing various types of transformation, Special Security guards are employed directly by the Government in order to convert them into Permanent position, Special Security guards are employed directly through a establishment of Public Security corporation, protective officers are hired by the Government, Self-guards are hired directly by the Government, Private police guards are employed directly by the Government. In order to reflect the Changes the Government policy of making Temporary position employees into the Permanent, the Special Security Guards from Private Security Firms in the National Critical Facility’s protection environment, protective personnels operation characteristic under various circumstances. Especially, in the process of making Special Security Guards to Permanent position, it is necessary to take precedence over the various opinions of Special Security Guards and stakeholder.

국가중요시설 방호직무 종사자의 법적지위와 노동기본권 제한

신형석(Shin Hyeong Seok) 경찰대학 경찰학연구편집위원회 2015 경찰학연구 Vol.15 No.1

Since the protective duties of workers engaged in the protective duties of national majorfacilities, such as a special private security guard pursuant to the Securities ServicesIndustry Act and a private police pursuant to the Police Assigned for Special Guard Act,take the public nature, their working conditions, as provided under the Labor StandardsAct, and their basic labor rights, as secured in Article 33 (1) of the Constitutional law, areseverely restricted in accordance with relevant laws and regulations. Recently, several problems have occurred in respect of the guarantee of social position& the improvement of labor conditions for the special private security guard and privatepolice, which are the workers engaged in the protective duties of national major facilities,and their detailed work scope & limits and the restriction necessity of their basic laborrights and its legal justification for the stable operation and management of national majorfacilities. The special private security guard and private police, which conducts the protectiveduties of national major facilities, have the position of normal workers (private person) inprinciple. However, because of the special position as the workers engaged in theprotective duties of national major facilities and the public nature of the guard businessconducted by them, the special private security guard is burdened with the ‘strike(collective action) injunction’ pursuant to Article 15(3) of the Securities Services IndustryAct and the private police is burdened with the stern obligation such as the ‘restriction ofthe labor’s three primary rights’ pursuant to Article 11 of the Police Assigned for Special Guard Act.

민간조사업 도입법안 논의와 그 입법대안

신형석(Shin, Hyeong Seok) 경찰대학 경찰학연구편집위원회 2015 경찰학연구 Vol.15 No.2

It has been continuously raised to assert the necessity and appropriateness for the introduction of private investigation business aiming to prevent social harmful effects due to the covert·illegal private investigation activities of a detective agency, which is recently pointed out as a severe social problem, and to protect the rights & interests of people and to recover their damage. The National Assembly’s legislation efforts and lawmaking activities to regulate the aspect of behaviors which are thoughtlessly conducted in a private sector have been continued. after reflecting the formation of a social consensus and any requests from all walks of life against this social harmful effect. The serious lawmaking activities in the National Assembly for the purpose of the legislation of private investigation business was started from the 17th National Assembly and its legislative bills have been raised over 9 rounds in a method of legislation by Assembly members until the 19th National Assembly. Nonetheless the reason the lawmaking activities in the national Assembly were not effectively progressed is due to the followings: the lack of agreement for the legislation of private investigation business, the business duplication with other business area and its possibility of infringement, the government’s unsatisfactory legislative supporting activities, the difference between administrative departments about the establishment method of standards and the designation of jurisdictional administrative agency for the administration & supervision of the private investigation business, and concerns about the adverse and side effects the system such as personal information leakage and privacy invasion, etc. Because of this reason, the efforts for its legislation in the successive National Assembly shows aspects in which the legislative bills have been automatically abolished by the proposer’s voluntary withdrawal or the expiration of National Assembly’s session to repeat consumptive lawmaking activities. In the future, a legislative discussion in the National Assembly for the purpose of introducing the private investigation business is required to review carefully the introduction of the system by conducting in the view of public law the in-depth approach of main issues such as the establishment method of standards for the regulation of the private investigation business, the work scope of a private investigator, the qualification of a private investigator, the operation body of the private investigation business, and the designation of jurisdictional administrative agency for the administration & supervision of the private investigation business.

스마트 공항 수하물 분류 시스템

류수찬(Su-Chan Ryu),신형석(Hyeong-Seok Shin),전세윤(Se-Yun Jeon),조경환(Kyeong-Hwan Jo),박범용(Beom-Yong Park) 한국정보기술학회 2018 Proceedings of KIIT Conference Vol.2018 No.6

행정형벌의 행정질서벌화 경향에 대한 소고

이기세(Lee Ki Se),신형석(Shin Hyeong Seok) 한국범죄심리학회 2015 한국범죄심리연구 Vol.11 No.3

행정상 의무이행확보수단의 기능을 수행하는 행정벌(行政罰)은 행정법규 위반에 대한 전형적인 제재수단으로서 행정형벌과 행정질서벌로 구분되고 있다. 행정형벌(行政刑罰)은 국가의 형벌권작용으로서 현행「형법」제41조에 규정되어 있는 형벌을 말하며, 우리나라의 개별 행정법규에서 규정하고 있는 행정형벌의 대다수가 바로 이에 해당한다. 반면, 행정질서벌(行政秩序罰)은 개별 행정법규에서 통상 과태료(過怠料)라는 명칭으로 특정의 행정목적을 위해 부과되는 행정벌이며, 처벌의 법적 근거를 '法令'을 포함하여 지방자치단체의 '條例'에서도 찾을 수 있다는 점에서 행정형벌과는 그 법적 성격을 달리한다. 최근 현대행정의 복잡화ㆍ다양화 등을 이유로 개별행정법규 정립에 행정형벌이 지나치게 활용됨으로써 이로 인한 여러 문제점이 노출되고 있다. 이에 대한 대안으로 행정형벌의 과잉입법을 지양하고, 행정질서벌(과태료)을 통한 수범자(受範者)의 의무이행확보수단 활용이 더욱 효과적이라는 주장이 제기되고 있다. 이와 같은 국가형벌권행사 및 행정상 의무이행확보수단으로 활용되고 있는 행정벌은 특히, 행정형벌의 비범죄화ㆍ비형벌화라는 형사정책의 변화와 시대적 사조에 발맞추어 변화된 행정상 의무이행확보수단으로서의 역할을 요구받고 있다. An administrative punishment, which conducts the function of means to secure the executions of administrative obligations, is the typical sanction and classified into an administrative penalty and an administrative order punishment. The administrative penalty means a criminal penalty which is the operation of a state punishment power, as provided in the current Criminal Law article 41, to which a lot of administrative penalties as provided in any individual administrative regulations in Korea would be applied. On the other hand, the administrative order punishment is an administrative punishment imposed for a specific administrative purpose in the name of fine for default in any individual administrative regulations, and its characteristics are different from the administrative penalty in that the legal basis of the punishment can be founded even on the statute and the ordinance of a local government. While the administrative penalty is excessively exploited for the establishment of individual administrative regulations because of the complexificationㆍdiversification of modern public administration recently, its several problems have been shown. As an alternative against it, the excessive legislations of the administrative penalty shall be sublated and a claim, in which the exploitation of the means to secure the executions of obligation against a convicted person through the administrative order punishment (fine for default) is more effective, has been raised. Such administrative punishment, which is exploited as the means to exercise a state punishment power and to secure the executions of obligations, has been required as the role of the means to secure the executions of administrative obligations as altered in step with the change of a criminal policy and the trend of the times, specially such as the decriminalizationㆍdepunishment of administrative penalty.