Earticle

초록

영어

Since 2005, sixteen bills on the private investigation industry have been discarded, defeated not by their substance but by the dispute over whether the National Police Agency or the Ministry of Justice should supervise the industry. The 2026 amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act, which abolished the prosecutor's direct investigative power, and the ensuing division of the Prosecution Service into the Public Prosecution Service and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency have altered the very structure of criminal justice that this debate presupposed. This study revisits that question in light of the 2026 reform of the criminal investigation structure and proposes a workable legislative alternative. The study rests on documentary research and proceeds through three stages of analysis. First, it examines the supervisory-authority provisions of the sixteen bills introduced from the 17th to the 22nd National Assembly, together with the minutes of the standing committee and subcommittee deliberations and the review opinions of the Korean Bar Association, in order to identify why the legislation repeatedly failed. Second, it analyses the provisions of the amended Criminal Procedure Act, the Public Prosecution Service Act and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Act to determine how the reform affects the premises of the existing arguments. Third, it compares the supervisory regimes of fifty U.S. states, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan, classifying them into four types — police agency, business regulation agency, independent commission, and attorney general — and derives from that comparison the criteria against which each domestic alternative is then evaluated. The study rests on documentary research and proceeds through three stages of analysis. First, it examines the supervisory-authority provisions of the sixteen bills introduced from the 17th to the 22nd National Assembly, together with the minutes of the standing committee and subcommittee deliberations and the review opinions of the Korean Bar Association, in order to identify why the legislation repeatedly failed. Second, it analyses the provisions of the amended Criminal Procedure Act, the Public Prosecution Service Act and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Act to establish the content of the reform and its effect on the premises of the existing arguments. Third, it compares the supervisory regimes of fifty U.S. states, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan, classifying them into four types - police agency, business regulation agency, independent commission, and attorney general - and derives from that comparison the criteria against which each domestic alternative is then evaluated. With the abolition of the prosecutor's direct investigative power, the case for the Ministry of Justice has lost its premise, and the creation of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency has weakened the case for the police as well. At the same time, the concentration of investigative functions under the Minister of the Interior and Safety calls for substantive democratic control, while a transitional investigative vacuum is expanding demand for private investigation and thus makes legislation more urgent than before. Comparative experience - the Prefectural Public Safety Commissions of Japan, CNAPS in France and the SIA in the United Kingdom — shows that separating the vesting of disciplinary authority from the delegation of enforcement is the effective design. This study therefore proposes that the National Police Commission set the standards, that disciplinary authority rest with the Metropolitan and Provincial Autonomous Police Commissions, and that enforcement be entrusted to local police stations, provided the commission system is first made substantive by elevating the National Police Commission to a collegiate central administrative agency and extending its deliberative jurisdiction to the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency.

한국어

탐정 관련 법률안은 2005년 이래 16차례 법안이 발의되었으나, 관리･감독기관을 경찰청과 법무부 중 어디에 둘 것인지를 둘러싼 부처 간 다툼으로 모두 폐기되었다. 그런데 2026년 ｢형사소송법｣ 개정으로 검사의 직접수사권이 폐지되고 검찰청이 공소청과 중대범죄수사청으로 분리됨에 따라, 종래의 논의가 전제하고 있던 형사사법구조 자체가 변경되었다. 이 연구는 2026년 수사구조 개편을 틀로 삼아 그 소재를 재검토하였다. 연구방법으로는 문헌연구를 기본으로 세 단계의 분석을 수행하였다. 첫째, 제17대부터 제22대 국회까지 발의된 탐정 관련 법안 16건의 소관부처 조항과 소관 상임위원회･법안심사소위원회 회의록, 대한변호사협회의 검토의견서를 분석하여 입법 좌초의 원인을 규명하였다. 둘째, 개정 ｢형사소송법｣과 ｢공소청법｣･｢중대범죄수사청 조직 및 운영에 관한 법률｣의 조문을 분석하여, 개편의 내용이 종래 소관부처 논거의 전제에 미치는 영향을 논거별로 검토하였다. 셋째, 미국 50개 주와 영국･프랑스･독일･일본의 관리･감독체계를 각 유형별로 구분하여 비교하고, 여기에서 도출한 설계원리를 토대로 선정기준을 정립한 뒤 각 대안을 그 기준에 따라 평가하였다. 검사의 직접수사권 폐지로 법무부 소관론은 그 전제를 잃었고, 중수청 신설로 경찰청 소관론도 설득력이 약화되었다. 반면 수사기능이 행정안전부에 집중되어 민주적 통제가 요청되고, 과도기적 수사 공백은 민간조사 수요를 확대시키고 있다. 비교법적으로는 처분권의 귀속과 집행의 위탁을 분리하는 설계가 유효하였다. 이에 국가경찰위원회가 관리･감독의 표준을 정하고 처분권은 시･도자치경찰위원회에, 집행은 일선 경찰관서에 맡기되, 국가경찰위원회의 실질화가 선행되어야 함을 제안하였다. 다만 이 연구는 규범적･문헌적 검토에 머물렀다는 한계를 갖는다.

목차

<요약>
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 탐정업 소관부처의 소재에 관한 논의
Ⅲ. 최근의 수사구조 개편과 탐정업에 미치는 영향
Ⅳ. 탐정업 소관부처의 소재에 관한 재검토
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
【Abstract】

키워드

저자

• 김재운 [ Kim, Jae-Woon | 세종사이버대학교 경찰학과 교수 ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  시큐리티 연구 [KOREAN SECURITY JOURNAL]

• 간기

  계간

• pISSN

  2671-4299

• 수록기간

  1997~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 350 DDC 351