지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
According to current criminal procedure code, the prosecutors are to preside the investigation. In fact, it is the police who investigates the vast majority of the criminal cases in our society. The cases where prosecutors preside accounts only for a small portion. In reality, the police does most of the investigation while the prosecutors decide only on the arraignment by examining the results of the completed investigations that come from the police. Having said this, it would be sensible if the police presides the investigationand prosecutors are just to decide on the arraignment. However, the prescriptions in the criminal procedure code is far from this. The presiding party of the investigation is the prosecutors and they are toguide and direct the judicial police on it. The reason why the police is not given the independent jurisdiction and kept under the prosecutor`s presidency is explained in two ways. First, there could be a danger of human rights infringement once independent jurisdiction is bestowed upon the police. Korean police is an organized group where over 150,000 armed personnel follow the commissioner`s commandconsistently. If this vast organization is not controlled by the external means, its huge power might be abused and infringe the rights of the citizens. Second, the efficiency of the investigation could be impeded. The purpose of the investigation is to confirm the criminal charges, prosecute, and give a conviction. This prosecution and the maintenance of the conviction require judgements from the prosecutors who are legal experts. If the police has finished the investigation and there is a lack of these requirements, inefficient results such as re-investigation might occur. This explanationassures the efficiency of the investigation that is presided by the prosecutors from the beginning. It is true that there were many violations of the human rights by the investigation agency in the past when the authoritarian government seized the power. However, the prosecutors still had a definite jurisdiction over investigation even during those times. It seems there is no definite link between the prosecutors` presidency and the probability of the police infringing on human rights. Because the hierarchy system is very well established in the police, the custom of human rights violation lies at the hands of the head administration that is at the top of police authority but is not related to whether the prosecutors preside the investigation or not. Also, relating back to the efficiencyof the investigation, the prosecutors practically do not lead the most criminal cases except for a few very important cases. Therefore, it would be sufficient just to write out the guidelines which prescribe the requirements for the police investigation. There is no reason for not to legislate the standards for distinguishing the cases that require prosecutor`s direct guidance and those that do not. Thus, by categorizing the cases as those that need direct guidance of the prosecutors and those that can be abstractly regulated, the police can be bestowed a jurisdiction over the investigation to the latter cases and still be tolerable.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (58)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)
-
대법원 1999. 12. 7. 선고 98도3329 판결
수사, 즉 범죄혐의의 유무를 명백히 하여 공소를 제기·유지할 것인가의 여부를 결정하기 위하여 범인을 발견·확보하고 증거를 수집·보전하는 수사기관의 활동은 수사 목적을 달성함에 필요한 경우에 한하여 사회통념상 상당하다고 인정되는 방법 등에 의하여 수행되어야 하는 것인바, 무인장비에 의한 제한속도 위반차량 단속은 이러한 수사활동의 일환으로서
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2011. 5. 26. 선고 2011도3682 판결
[1] 현행범인은 누구든지 영장 없이 체포할 수 있는데( 형사소송법 제212조), 현행범인으로 체포하기 위하여는 행위의 가벌성, 범죄의 현행성·시간적 접착성, 범인·범죄의 명백성 이외에 체포의 필요성 즉, 도망 또는 증거인멸의 염려가 있어야 하고, 이러한 요건을 갖추지 못한 현행범인 체포는 법적 근거에 의하지 아니한 영장
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-360-002579224