검사의 독점적 영장청구권과 통신사실 확인자료 요청허가청구권 = The prosecutor`s monopoly claims of a warrant and the right to request of communication confirmed data

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Korean Constitution has explicit provision (Article 12 section 3, Article 16 clause 2) that prosecutor is the only subject of request for a warrant in case of arrest, detention, seizure, or search in order to protect the freedom and human right of a suspect. By the way, the nature of the doctrine of warrants is that independent and neutral judges should determine impartially and objectively the legality of the execution of compulsory investigation. It does not mean a judicial control by the prosecution. Recently the prosecution is criticized for the Infringement of the autonomy of the police investigation and judicial review of a warrant by unfairly dismissed the warrant application of the police officer in the prosecution based on the prosecutor``s constitutional monopoly claims of a warrant. Meanwhile, in relation to the investigation of organized crime, drugs offence, terrorist crime etc, despite the importance and necessity of the telecommunication investigation by the investigation agency, the freedom of communication is easily infringed even if there is abuse of provision of a communication confirmed data for telecommunication investigation. Article 13 of Protection of Communications Secrets Act provides that it is necessary to take a warrant, which is issued by a judge in case of requesting to the provision of a communication confirmed data by the investigation agency in order to protect the freedom of communication. This is to ensure strict judicial control and review under the warrant systems. By the way, it is problem what is the legal nature of requesting to the provision of a communication confirmed data according to article 13 of Protection of Communications Secrets Act and that it is proper that prosecutor is the only subject of requesting to the provision of a communication confirmed data. Therefore, this study examines the legal nature of requesting to the provision of a communication confirmed data and the subject of requesting to the provision of a communication confirmed, which is allowed only to prosecutor. And the most important conclusion of this article is that a police officer who has the qualification as a lawyer should be given the right to request of the provision of a communication confirmed data like the prosecutor. In addition to this, a revision of Protection of Communications Secrets Act and its institutional measures are suggested.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2012

2 임동규, "형사소송법" 법문사 2014

3 이금로, "형사법과 헌법이론" 공법연구회 2006

4 정종섭, "헌법학원론 제7판" 박영사 2012

5 "헌법연구자문위원회 결과보고서(요약본)" 2009

6 서보학, "헌법상 검사독점적 영장청구권 문제의 실증적·처방적 연구" 2009

7 조균석, "일본형사소송법" 박영사 2012

8 안미영, "우리 헌법상 검사의 영장신청권 조항의 의의" 대검찰청 (24) : 1-45, 2010

9 서보학, "예금자비밀보호와 계좌추적의 요건 및 한계" 한국형사정책학회 14 (14): 5-221, 2002

10 김선택, "영장청구주체입법의 변천 및 평가" 안암법학회 (31) : 1-29, 2010

11 김선택, "영장청구권 관련 헌법규정 연구" 경찰청 2008

12 황정인, "영장주의의 본질과 영장제도: 체포제도를 중심으로" 한국형사정책연구원 21 (21): 203-237, 2010

13 문성도, "영장주의의 도입과 형성에 관한 연구 : 1954년 형사소송법의 성립을 중심으로" 서울대학교 2001

14 신동운, "신형사소송법 제4판" 법문사 2012

15 정승환, "신형사소송법" 홍문사 2008

16 정태호, "권리장전의 개정방향" 한국공법학회 34 (34): 113-154, 2006

17 서보학, "검사독점적 영장청구제도에 대한 비판과 입법론적 대안" 한국비교형사법학회 12 (12): 275-306, 2010

18 방희선, "검사 영장청구권의 법적 의의와 타당성 검토(下)" 법조협회 62 (62): 5-62, 2013

19 방희선, "검사 영장청구권의 법적 의의와 타당성 검토(上)" 법조협회 62 (62): 5-43, 2013

20 정영화, "개인정보감독기구의 법정책고찰" 함께하는 시민행동 2003

21 김연수, "개인정보" 사이버출판사 2001

22 정준현, "位置認識 및 通信事實確認資料 등의 個人情報與否에관한 小考" 한국토지공법학회 24 : 491-510, 2004