사법경찰관리에 관한 소고(小考) -사법경찰리의 독자적 수사권 행사에 관한 문제를 중심으로- = A Study on Judicial Police Officials -Focus on Exercising Unprescribed Power of Investigation by Judicial Police Assistants－

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Despite the provision of the Criminal Procedure Act < Article 196 >, The Supreme Court holds on to the authorities of investigations which are conducted by the judicial police assistants and recognizes them legally-appropriate; such as interrogation of a suspect, listening to statements of a third party, seizure· search, inspection of evidence and so on and so forth. Also, the admissibility of evidence of protocols of interrogation of a suspect, protocols of statement, protocols of inspection of evidence written by judicial police assistants is accepted by the Court as if those are written by judicial police officer, if the requirements of them are fulfilled. The common opinion supports the judicial decision of The Supreme Court or goes along with that.
However, this study demonstrates that judicial police assistants merely have the authorities for “assistance of investigation”, not to investigate by themselves own conducting the interrogation of a suspect, listening to statements of a third party, seizure·search, inspection of evidence and so forth by according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.
With the same point of view, this study deals with the legal character of judicial police officer, such as investigator and police administrative official regulated by provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, and prosecution investigation official regulated by provisions of the Prosecutor’s Office Act.
Especially, the contents mainly looks the problem of the legal basis of the precedents of The Supreme Court about judicial police assistant’s authority for investigation; such as some related acts and subordinate statutes, the administrative decree of the Japanese Government General of Korea, and some provisions of the presidential decree about the standards of investigation for both prosecutor’s instruction to judicial police official and judicial police official itself which is recently established and enforced.
Furthermore, to solve the problem of the exercising on the authority for investigation conducted by judicial police assistance is critical to decide whether the standards of prosecutor’s investigation instruction to judicial police official is legally-correct and appropriate or not. Also, this is the foundation stone for starting discussions on the independence of authority for investigation of the judicial police officer
In conclusion, it emphasizes on to change the judicial decision of The Supreme Court and to call attention of the studies of law fields about this problem stated above.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이은모, "형사소송법[제3판]" 박영사 2012

2 백형구, "형사소송법 조문해설" 한국사법행정학회 2008

3 임동규, "형사소송법 제8판" 법문사 2012

4 차용석, "형사소송법 제3판" 21세기사 2008

5 노명선, "형사소송법 제2판" 성균관대학교 출판부 2011

6 정웅석, "형사소송법 전정제5판" 大明出版社 2012

7 박상열, "형사소송법 개정판" 형설출판사 2009

8 손동권, "형사소송법 개정신판" 세창출판사 2010

9 백형구, "형사소송법" 법원사 2012

10 송광섭, "형사소송법" 형설출판사 2010

11 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2012

12 이영란, "한국 형사소송법 개정판" 나남출판 2008

13 최영승, "피의자신문과 적법절차" 세창출판사 2005

14 김택수, "프랑스 사법경찰관제도의 기원 및 계수 과정에 관한 연구" 경찰대학 2 : 2007

15 백형구, "주석 형사소송법 (Ⅱ) 제4판" 한국사법행정학회 2009

16 신동운, "입문 일본형사수속법" 법문사 2003

17 정긍식, "일제의 식민정책과 식민지 조선의 법제" 한국법제연구원 (14) : 1998

18 문인구, "영미검찰제도개론" 법률문화연구회 1970

19 백형구, "알기쉬운 형사소송법 제4판" 박영사 2007

20 신동운, "신형사소송법 제4판" 법문사 2012

21 배종대, "신형사소송법 제4판" 홍문사 2012

22 신양균, "신판 형사소송법" 화산미디어 2009

23 김창록, "식민지 피지배기 법제의 기초" 한국법제연구원 (8) : 1995

24 신동운, "수사지휘권의 귀속에 관한 연혁적 고찰(Ⅱ)" 42 (42): 2001

25 신동운, "수사지휘권의 귀속에 관한 연혁적 고찰(Ⅰ)" 42 : 2001

26 백형구, "사법경찰관리에 관한 소송법상 문제점 －특히 사법경찰관사무취급에 관하여" 대한변호사협회 (106) : 1985

27 권창국, "기본강의 형사소송법" 청목출판사 2012

28 김효전, "구 한말 경찰의 이론과 실제" 26 : 2001

29 김충남, "경찰수사론 제2판" 박영사 2006

30 김창록, "1948년 헌법 제100조－4⋅3계엄령을 통해 본 일제 법령의 효력" 부산대학교 법과대학법학연구소 39 (39): 1998