수사권 조정 입법으로 인한 실무상 문제점과 개선 방안 = Practical Problems and Improvement to the Prosecution Reform Bill

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The legistlation on the adjustment of investigatine power, which was initiated with the aim of reforming the ‘Political Prosecution’, structurally changed the entire criminal procedure, including the civil criminal procedure.
The ‘2018. June 21st Agreement on the Adjustment of Investigative Powers of Prosecutor and Police’, which served as the basis for the legistlation, stated that the ultimate purpose of the legistlation to improve the efficiency of investigations and protect people’s fundamental rights, but it has been four years since the revised Criminal Code was enforced, and there have been a number of high-cost, low-efficiency and complicated procedures such as maze-like procedures, as well as the suspension of unremandered investigations. As problem such as the judicial codification of decisions and the inherent limitations of the supplementary investigation request process have been revealed, leading to the so-called ‘pingpong’ between prosecutors and police, questions have been raised as to whether the revised Criminal Code is an appropriate means to realize its objectives.
This is likely due to the fact that the legislation was conceived with the idea of the fragmenting the criminal process and removing prosecutors’ involvement from a large part of the fragmented areas. It is now necessary to recall that the original purpose of the efficiency of investigation and protect fundamental rights of the people, and to consider to solve the above problems in a way that is consistent with that.
We should consider simplifying the complicated and fragmented procedures, such as providing judicial control over pending investigation case by requesting re-investigation and improving the practice of producing the same records in duplicate : strengthening judicial control over non-remand and suspended investigation case by revising the reasons for requesting re-investigation ti be clearer and broader ; and requiring police to make a “decision” after a supplementary investigation ; clarifying the process to allow for consultation with the prosecutor prior to remand.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2019
• 2 법률신문, "형사부 검사의 하루"
• 3 박성민, "현행 수사고조의 문제점과 개선방안 – 검사의 직접수사범위 및 검·경 간의 수사협력관계를 둘러싼 논란을 중심으로" 32 (32): 2024
• 4 최호진, "한국형 수사와 기소분리모델의 전망과 경찰의 과제" 한국비교형사법학회 19 (19): 2017
• 5 전상수, "제369회 국회(임시회) 제15차 사법개혁특별위원회 형사소송법 일부개정 법률안 검토보고" 2019
• 6 한겨레, "쌓이는 수사...수사권 조정 1년 누구도 만족 못했다"
• 7 한국일보, "수사권 조정하자 고소인이 ‘죄인’ 됐다... 접수는 막히고 수사는 깜깜"
• 8 이문호 ; 김성균 ; 오정일, "수사권 조정의 편익 측정 : 이중 수사를 중심으로" (498) : 2021
• 9 김대근, "수사권 조정에 따른 수사종결의 쟁점과 대안" 33 (33): 2022
• 10 법률신문, "수사결과에 책임 없는 경찰... 원인은 ‘인사 제도’"
• 11 헤럴드경제, "변호사도 모르고 수사관도 헷갈려 ... 미로 헤매는 형사사건"
• 12 법률신문, "변호사 73.5% “검‧ 경 수사권 조정 후 경찰 수사 지연”"
• 13 연합뉴스, "동료들 잇단 사망에 경찰 술렁.. ‘근무환경 개선’ 요구 커져"
• 14 박찬걸, "검경 수사권 조정에 대한 비판적 분석 – 2020. 2. 4.자 개정 형사소송법 및 검찰청법의 내용을 중심으로" (121) : 2020
• 15 세계일보, "검‧ 경 수사권 조정 시행 3년... “수사 지연 폐해 더 커져.”"
• 16 허인석, "개정 형사소송법·검찰청법의 평가 및 향후 개정방안" 15 (15): 2023
• 17 한국일보, "“고소하다 지쳐” 법원까지 가려면 15단계 이상 거쳐야 한다"
• 18 SBS, "‘마포 감금 살인’ 피해자 고소 외면한 경찰관들 징계"
• 19 연합뉴스, "‘마포 감금 살인’ 피해자 고소 외면한 경찰관들 정직 등 징계"
• 20 세계일보, "[설왕설래] 수사권 조정의 폐해"