현행 형사소송법상 체포제도에 대한 검토 = A Study of Arrest-related Problems in Criminal Procedure Act 2008

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Though an arrest is one of the most efficient tools in search for the substantial truth, it also deprives suspects of their liberty to go where they please. Therefore, balancing the conflicting principles of the investigation of crime and protection of human rights would be a rational and practical solution.
Criminal Procedure Act, valid from January 1st, 2008, proclaims the principle of a Non-Arrest. In addition, the renewed legislation has improved the problem of arrest-related provisions. Even so, as far as arresting practices are concerned, criminal investigators still prefer Urgent Arrest, which is permitted in exceptional cases, to Ordinary Arrest executed by a judge-issued Arrest Warrant. Also, there has not been a proper control by judges of the period between the time of Urgent Arrest or Immediate On-sight Arrest and the time when Warrants are issued by the Court. In brief, there still remain various problems with regard to the principle of an Arrest Warrant.
One of the primary characteristic of Criminal Procedural Act is not to give the rights to seek an Arrest Warrant by police investigators. Furthermore, the power to check and control potential human rights infringements by police detectives is conferred upon Prosecutors, who have the same status of criminal investigators as police investigators. Additionally, Urgent Arrest and Immediate On-sight Arrest are also permitted as an exception along with an Ordinary Arrest by Warrant. These weak points result not only in the inefficiency of investigation, but also in the vulnerability to encroachment of suspects’ human rights.
To better the situations, the right to have an independent right to decide whether to arrest a suspectneeds to be guaranteed to police investigators. In checking and controlling this legal power, the Court, not a criminal investigation institution like Prosecutor’s Office, must have the right to intervene immediately in police misbehaviors. Further, in terms of Urgent Arrest and Immediate On-sight Arrest, systematic improvements are necessary, like having more specific criteria and strengthening court’s control in arresting suspects.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 각국의 체포제도
• Ⅲ. 우리나라의 체포제도
• Ⅳ. 현행 형사소송법상 체포제도의 문제점 검토
• Ⅴ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• 〈ABSTRACT〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 백형구, "형사소송법강의" 박영사 2005
• 2 손동권, "형사소송법" 세창 2008
• 3 신동운, "형사소송법" 법문사 2008
• 4 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2008
• 5 이영란, "한국형사소송법" 나남 2008
• 6 오경식, "한국과 미국의 형사소송절차에서의 체포제도의 비교연구" 한국비교형사법학회 5 (5): 36-972, 2003
• 7 황정인, "체포제도의 문제점과 개선방안" 충남대 2004
• 8 김종덕, "체포제도에 관한 비교법적 고찰" 계명대학교 사회과학연구소 법학연구실 2002
• 9 이기호, "인신구속과 체포영장제도의 법리 in: 경찰대논문집" 1994
• 10 유칠성, "우리나라의 형사소송법상 체포제도의 문제점에 대한 고찰" 한세대 2004
• 11 안성수, "영미의 체포 구속제도에 비추어 본 우리 제도의 문제점과 보완방안" 대검찰청 2007
• 12 이은모, "수사상의 인신구속에 관한 한일형사소송법의 비교연구" 법학연구소 23 (23): 151-170, 2006
• 13 경찰청, "반드시 알아야 할 개정 형사소송절차" 경찰청 2007
• 14 정세종, "경찰의 강제수사절차에 관한 비교법적 연구" 한국경찰학회 6 (6): 313-340, 2004
• 15 심재무,개정 형사소송법의 인신구속제도, "개정 형사소송법의 인신구속제도" 경성대학교 법학연구소 16 (16): 2007
• 16 법무부, "개정 형사소송법 해설" 법무부 2007
• 17 "The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice" The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 1967
• 18 George F. Cole, "The American System of Criminal justice" Cengage Learning 2008
• 19 Rolando V. del Carmen, "Criminal Procedure Law and Practice" Wadsworth publishing 1995
• 20 Joel Samaha, "Criminal Procedure" Thomson Wadsworth 2005
• 21 Phillip E. Johnson, "Criminal Procedure" West Publishing 1994
• 22 David W. Neubauer, "America's courts and the criminal justice system" Wadsworth publishing 2008