공수처의 기능 강화와 검찰권 견제 = Strengthening the function of the high-ranking public officials criminal investigation office and checking the power of the prosecution

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The prosecutors belonging to the Prosecutors' Office are monopolizing the power of prosecution. So the prosecutor's crime should also be prosecuted by the prosecutor. In this respect it is of great significance in criminal proceedings that the prosecutor's monopoly on prosecution has been broken with the advent of the high-ranking officials criminal investigation office. An investigation organization was created that could check the prosecutors who were not checked.
However, the power of prosecution by the high-ranking public officials criminal investigation office is extremely limited. It is no different from the police who only have the authority to investigate. The extreme restriction of the prosecution authority of the high-ranking public officials criminal investigation office is contrary to the purpose of the establishment of the high-ranking public officials criminal investigation office, and the interpretive and systematic problems of the criminal procedure law resulting from this are difficult to solve.
The organization and personnel of the high-ranking officials criminal investigation office is very small and its authority is very weak. It is necessary to give the high-ranking officials criminal investigation office the authority to prosecute for all crimes that have the authority to investigate.
It is necessary to strengthen the function of the high-ranking public officials criminal investigation office so that it can faithfully perform the role of checking the power of the prosecution in accordance with the purpose of the establishment of the high-ranking public officials criminal investigation office.
Even if the high-ranking public officials criminal investigation office exercises the prosecution power that matches the investigative authority, for the efficiency of the investigation and the prosecution, the functional separation of the investigative authority and the prosecution authority is not appropriate.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 정한중, "적법절차 확립과 인권친화적 수사체계 구축"
• 2 이성기, "수사와 기소 기능의 분리" 2017
• 3 최대현, "수사와 기소 기능분리의 원칙과 한계: 영국 검찰제도의 발전과정과 시사점" 경찰대학 12 (12): 52-80, 2012
• 4 조기영, "수사권조정과 수사절차개선" 한국비교형사법학회 21 (21): 37-61, 2019
• 5 최운식, "선진수사기구로 출범하기 위한 공수처 설립방향공청회 자료집 토론문"
• 6 박노섭, "선진수사기구로 출범하기 위한 공수처 설립방향 공청회 자료집 토론문"
• 7 오병두, "선진수사기구로 출범하기 위한 공수처 설립방향 공청회 자료집 토론문"
• 8 이석배, "독일의 검찰 탄생과 법무부장관의 지휘권" 한국형사법학회 26 (26): 139-164, 2014
• 9 정웅석, "공수처법의 해석 및 운영방안" 2020
• 10 오병두, "공수처, 어떻게 운영되어야 하나? - 공수처의 운영방향에 관한 제언 -" 한국형사정책학회 32 (32): 125-148, 2020
• 11 한상훈, "공수처 내부의 견제와 균형-견제와 균형을 통한 절제된 수사구조 확립을 위하여-"
• 12 정한중, "고위공직자범죄수사처법 제정과 운영에 관한 연구" 대한변호사협회 (491) : 67-84, 2020
• 13 김남준, "고위공직자범죄수사처 설치의 의미와 앞으로의 방향" 대한변호사협회 2020
• 14 장승혁, "검찰권의 제한 - 개정 형사소송법, 검찰청법 및 공수처법에 대한 평가와 향후 과제" 한국형사법학회 32 (32): 261-296, 2020