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
Pre-investigation activities refer to activities that the judicial police and the public prosecutor confidentially perform to find out someone’ criminal suspicion before they investigate about him as the suspect by criminal booking. They called as “an interim investigation case” too.
Pre-investigation activities are being used by the investigatory organizations as one of the effective methods for criminal investigation. But the legal ground of Pre-investigation activities is not clear. Some peoples assert that their legal ground can be found in the Art. 199 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The others assert that their legal ground can be found from general provisons about the official authority of the investigatory organizations. In our country, there are the presidential decree and the justice ministry ordinance as the exiting regulations about pre-investigation activities. But I think that they can be served as legal ground for pre-investigation activities by the investigatory organizations because they are merely internal administrative rule. Therefore we have to enact the law that regulate immediately about the pre-investigation activities. The compulsory measures of the investigatory organizations in the criminal procedure have to regulate by the law.
And the investigatory organizations can’ do any legal disposition against the person who was subject to inquire in course of pre-investigation activities, because the examinee is not the suspect. Someone assert pre-investigation activities can be included under the category of the investigation by expanding the concept of investigation. But The Supreme Court declared that if the investigatory organizations had to do some legal disposition in course of pre-investigation activities, it is the investigation, not pre-investigation activities. And it is not allowed expect the special case, like the organized crime, the business crime etc. that the investigatory organizations make the direct inquiry against the examinee in course of pre-investigation activities although it is are voluntary.
Pre-investigation activities are being used by the investigatory organizations as one of the effective methods for criminal investigation. But the legal ground of Pre-investigation activities is not clear. Some peoples assert that their legal ground can be found in the Art. 199 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The others assert that their legal ground can be found from general provisons about the official authority of the investigatory organizations. In our country, there are the presidential decree and the justice ministry ordinance as the exiting regulations about pre-investigation activities. But I think that they can be served as legal ground for pre-investigation activities by the investigatory organizations because they are merely internal administrative rule. Therefore we have to enact the law that regulate immediately about the pre-investigation activities. The compulsory measures of the investigatory organizations in the criminal procedure have to regulate by the law.
And the investigatory organizations can’ do any legal disposition against the person who was subject to inquire in course of pre-investigation activities, because the examinee is not the suspect. Someone assert pre-investigation activities can be included under the category of the investigation by expanding the concept of investigation. But The Supreme Court declared that if the investigatory organizations had to do some legal disposition in course of pre-investigation activities, it is the investigation, not pre-investigation activities. And it is not allowed expect the special case, like the organized crime, the business crime etc. that the investigatory organizations make the direct inquiry against the examinee in course of pre-investigation activities although it is are voluntary.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 내사의 의의와 근거
Ⅲ. 내사의 범위와 한계－수사와의 구분
Ⅳ. 결어
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (33)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (5)
-
대법원 1991. 11. 5.자 91모68 결정
대통령에게 제출한 청원서를 대통령비서실로부터 이관받은 검사가 진정사건으로 내사 후 내사종결처리한 경우, 위 내사종결처리는 고소 또는 고발사건에 대한 불기소처분이라고 볼 수 없어 재정신청의 대상이 되지 아니한다.
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2006. 12. 7. 선고 2004다14932 판결
[1] 수사의 개시에 앞서 이루어지는 조사활동과 이에 기초한 범죄의 혐의가 있는가 여부에 관한 판단, 즉 수사를 개시할 것인가 또는 조사활동을 종결할 것인가의 판단은 수사기관이 제반 상황에 대응하여 자신에게 부여된 권한을 적절하게 행사할 수 있도록 합리적인 재량에 위임되어 있는 행위이다. 그러므로 조사활동과 그에 따른 수사의 개시 여부에 관
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1982. 6. 8. 선고 82도117 판결
공무원이 직무를 유기한 때라 함은 공무원이 법령 내규 또는 지시 통첩에 의한 추상적인 충근의무를 게을리한 일체의 경우를 지칭하는 것이 아니라 주관적으로 직무집행의사를 포기하고 객관적으로 정당한 이유없이 직무집행을 하지 아니하는 부작위상태가 있어 국가기능을 저해하는 경우를 말한다 할 것인바, 사법 경찰관리가 직무집행의사로 위법사실을 조사하여
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1996. 6. 3.자 96모18 결정
[1] 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리를 실질적으로 보장하기 위하여는 변호인과의 접견교통권의 인정이 당연한 전제가 되므로, 임의동행의 형식으로 수사기관에 연행된 피의자에게도 변호인 또는 변호인이 되려는 자와의 접견교통권은 당연히 인정된다고 보아야 하고, 임의동행의 형식으로 연행된 피내사자의 경우에도 이는 마찬가지이다.
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1979. 6. 12. 선고 79도792 판결
형사소송법 제184조에 의한 증거보전은 피고인 또는 피의자가 형사입건도 되기 전에는 청구할 수 없고, 또 피의자신문에 해당하는 사항을 증거보전의 방법으로 청구할 수 없다.
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-002627905