‘검사와 사법경찰관의 상호협력과 일반적 수사준칙에 관한 규정 제정안’상의 경찰의 수사권과 경찰개혁 방안

김혜경 한국형사법학회 2020 刑事法硏究 Vol.32 No.3

Regarding the right of national punishment, the most important thing from the people's point of view is the protection of human rights and the minimization of unnecessary procedures. In the 2018 Prosecutors' Investigation Authority Adjustment Agreement, the first priority was that the police had the 'primary right of investigation' in all cases. The prosecutor's superiority in investigative power in specific cases was again confirmed in accordance with the ‘prosecutor and judicial police officers' proposal to ‘Regulations on General Investigation Rules and Mutual Cooperation between Prosecutors and Judicial Police Officers’, which was announced in 7th August 2020. Looking back at the 2018 Prosecutors' Investigation Authority Adjustment Agreement, which explains why such a series of processes goes through, ``the police must have more autonomy in the first investigation, and the prosecution must fulfill the role of judicial control more faithfully, It is said that it is to escalate from this vertical relationship between command and supervision, and to cooperate to protect the safety and human rights of the people, while raising their responsibilities. The key is the protection of the people's safety and human rights, and the relationship between the two organizations in relation to the right of investigation is the most rational and efficient means to achieve the purpose. This thesis is to exclude the actual right of examination when requesting a warrant by the prosecution under the enactment, unification of the control method for the decision of non-repatriation by the police, legalization of the grounds for investigation after the end of the police's internal investigation, whether or not the police's discretionary power of repatriation is recognized. Contents such as the recognition of the criminal mediation system, the removal of the prosecution's right to demand police disciplinary action, the legalization of the establishment of the national investigation headquarters, the exclusion of the investigation rules, the establishment of an evasion system, and the priority of the police in case of investigation and competition were discussed. There are still many other challenges to be solved. 사법개혁을 위한 노력은 지난 20여 년간 새로운 제도들을 양산하였고, 현재에도 시행착오를 겪는 과정에 있다. 검찰과 경찰의 수사권배분, 공수처 설치, 자치경찰제도 도입, 국가수사본부 설치 등 모든 현안들은 분리된 문제들이 아니고 서로 톱니바퀴처럼 맞물려 있어서 어느 한 부분이라도 어긋나게 되면 그간의 노력들은 전진 없는 후퇴가 되고 만다. 그런데 제도개혁을 위한 노력들이 기관간의 권한쟁탈전이 되어가고 있는 동안, 가장 중심에 놓여져야 할 국민의 기본권과 인권이 색깔을 잃어가고 있는 듯하다. 국가형벌권과 관련하여 국민의 입장에서 가장 중요한 것은 인권보호이고, 불필요한 절차의 최소화이다. 2018년 검경수사권조정합의문은 경찰이 모든 사건에 대하여 ‘1차적 수사권’을 가짐을 가장 우선하였다. 그리고 후속조치로 형사소송법과 검찰청법이 개정되면서, 경찰은 모든 사건이 아닌 중대범죄를 제외한 민생범죄 위주의 수사권만을 확보하였고, 2020년 8월 입법예고된 ‘검사와 사법경찰관의 상호협력과 일반적 수사준칙에 관한 규정 제정안’에 의하여 다시 구체적인 사건에서 검사의 수사권 우위를 확인하였다. 왜 이와 같은 일련의 과정들을 거치는지, 다시 2018년 검경수사권조정 합의문을 살펴보면, ‘경찰은 1차 수사에서 보다 많은 자율권을 가져야 하며, 검찰은 사법통제 역할을 더욱 충실히 해야 한다는 원칙을 견지하여 양 기관이 지휘․감독의 수직적 관계를 벗어나, 국민의 안전과 인권수호를 위하여 협력하면서 각자의 책임을 고양’하기 위함이라고 한다. 핵심은 국민의 안전과 인권수호이고, 수사

수사권조정에 있어서 경찰의 송치·불송치 결정에 대한 몇 가지 문제점

최호진(Choi, Hojin) 한국형사정책학회 2020 刑事政策 Vol.32 No.1

Investigation and prosecution are in line with the principle of separation of powers in the constitutional system. When implementing a separation of powers, a quantitative approach that simply means separation of institutions is not enough. It should be not a “horizontal power separation” that simply separates and distributes power, but a “power separation system” that requires control of “check and balance”. In other words, it is important to achieve a “balance of power” by mutually restraining national authorities so that national authorities are not abused by being concentrated on one institution. From the point of view of constitutional value, the basic direction of the amended criminal law is correct. The police are responsible for evaluating and responsible for the results of the investigation, from the start of the investigation to the progress and termination of the investigation. The prosecution is expected to play the role of a neutral controller and a fair and objective prosecutor through a second inspection of the police investigation. Revised Criminal Procedure Act basically gives the police the primary right to terminate investigations and gives prosecutors the role of ex post control. However, if we go into the detail of the investigation, there seems to be a problem that has not yet been exposed. We investigated whether the authority distribution of the police and the prosecutors authorities are properly conducted in the initiation, progress, and termination of the investigation, and whether there are any expected problems. During the investigation, various discussions were made on the issue of competition between the police and the prosecution, the prosecutor s control system for the police investigation, and the police s decision-making system. Deployed. The fact that the nature of the police s decision to send or refusal is a provisional disposition, as a way to solve the problems that can be derived from the decision to send a refusal, to secure the effectiveness of the prosecutor s request for re-investigation, and It was suggested to utilize the system, expand the investigative examiner system, and establish an investigative review committee. The police, which have become more autonomous in investigating, will have to prepare various systems and measures to defend human rights in the investigation process. 수사와 기소는 분리되는 것이 헌법적 가치인 권력분립의 원칙에 부합한다. 권력분립을 구현할 경우에 단순히 기관의 분리를 의미하는 양적 접근만으로는 부족하다. 단순히 권력을 분리·분배하는 ‘수평적 권력분립’이 아니라, ‘견제와 균형’의 통제작용이 필수적인 ‘권력분립적 시스템’이 되어야 한다. 즉 국가권한이 하나의 기관에 집중되어 남용되지 않도록 국가기관간 상호 견제함으로써 ‘권력의 균형’을 이루는 것이 중요하다. 헌법적 가치의 관점에서 본다면 개정 형사소송법의 기본방향은 옳다. 경찰은 수사의 개시부터 진행·종결까지 그 수사결과에 대한 평가와 책임까지 부담하여 수사의 자율성과 책임이 높아져 책임수사의 원칙이 유지되어야 한다. 검사는 경찰수사에 대한 2차적 점검을 통하여 중립적 통제자 역할 및 공정하고 객관적인 기소권자의 역할을 수행할 것으로 기대된다. 개정 형사소송법은 기본적으로 경찰에게 1차적 수사종결권을 부여하고 검사에게 이에 대한 사후통제역할을 부여함을 원칙으로 하고 있다. 하지만 수사권조정에 있어서 세부적인 내용으로 들어가게 되면 아직 노출되지 않은 문제점이 있을 것으로 보인다. 수사의 개시, 진행, 종결에 있어서 경찰과 검찰 양 기관의 권한분배가 적절하게 이루어지고 있는지, 이에 대하여 예상되는 문제점이 있는지를 검토해보았다. 수사의 개시에 있어서 경찰과 검찰의 수사경합의 문제, 경찰수사의 진행에 대한 검사의 통제장치, 경찰의 송치결정과 관련된 통제장치뿐만 아니라 특히 경찰의 불송치 결정에 대한 통제장치에 대하여 다양한 논의를 전개하였다. 경찰의 송치·불송치결정의 성격이 잠정적 처분이라는 점, 블송치 결정에 대해서 파생될 수 있는 문제점을 해결하기 위한 방안으로 검사의 재수사요청에 대한 실효성 확보방안, 고소인의 의의신청과 관련하여 수사이의제도의 활용과 수사심사관제도의 확대, 수사심의위원회의 설치를 제안하였다. 수사에 있어서 보다 많은 자율성을 가지게 된 경찰은 이외에도 수사과정에서 인권옹호를 위한 다양한 제도와 방안을 마련해야 할 것이다.

형사절차상 내사의 의의와 한계

강동욱(Kang, DongWook) 한양법학회 2012 漢陽法學 Vol.23 No.2

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.

사법경찰관리의 내사와 검사의 지휘

강동욱(Kang Dong Wook) 경찰대학 경찰학연구편집위원회 2012 경찰학연구 Vol.12 No.2

Pre-investigation activities refer to activities that the judicial police and the public prosecutor confidentially perform to find out someone's 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. Someone assert that pre-investigation activities can be included under the category of the investigation by expanding the concept of investigation. And the prosecution insist they have the right to direct pre-investigation activities by the police on ground for the Art. 196① of the Criminal Procedure Act. On the contrary to this, the police interpret pre-investigation activities is not the investigation, is the one of police operation based the Art. 3 of the Police Act and the Art. 2 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers. So, they assert the prosecutor can't command pre-investigation activities by the police on the ground for the right to lead investigation based on the Criminal Procedure Act. The revised Criminal Procedure Act allowed the right to start investigation to the police by the Art. 196 ② of the Criminal Procedure Act. And there is no the legal ground to command the prosecutor pre-investigation activities by the police because they are not investigation. Therefore I assert that the police can do pre-investigation activities without a direction of the prosecutor. In fact, it is impossible the prosecutor command all of pre-investigation activities by the police. But I think we have to grant the ex post facto supervision of the prosecutor against pre-investigation activities by the police to prevent the abuse and misuse of them because pre-investigation activities is related to criminal investigation. Furthermore I assert to strengthen the self-control by the police in connection to pre-investigation activities.

세무조사제도에 대한 비교법적 검토와 시사점 — 세무조사 녹음권과 행정조사기본법을 중심으로 —

서보국 행정법이론실무학회 2023 행정법연구 Vol.- No.70

Tax investigation is ‘hoheitliches Realakt’ under the administrative law, and precedents choose the latter as to whether to fight the case itself or the tax procedure if there is a defect. In addition, as an issue in public law, there was a controversy over whether to recognize the tax investigation decision, which is the previous step, as a disposition, but the precedent recognizes it. However, until now, as an issue in the public law review of tax investigations, there have been few cases in which tax authorities' excessive discretion and room for interpretation have been raised as issues in tax investigation procedures based on the viewpoints of violation of the principle of due process and procedural tax legalism. It is only supplemented from the viewpoint of protecting the rights of taxpayers. In tax administration practice and tax law, the issue of overlapping investigations in relation to due process was intensively dealt with, and although the prohibition of overlapping investigations was stipulated in the Framework Act on National Taxes, there are still unresolved issues. The cause of these problems is that the concept of tax investigation is not clear, and so far, the courts have only made practical decisions on a case-by-case basis. In this paper, a comparative legal review of tax procedural legal regulations and systems for tax investigations in the US, UK, and Germany is attempted, and specific regulations and exceptions for each stage are much more detailed than Korea's tax investigation system. In addition to these general problems, recent conflicts related to the guarantee of recording rights during tax investigations are introduced, and comparative legal considerations are attempted to solve these problems. According to the results of a comparative study on the systems of the United States and Taiwan, it is judged that the right to record in general tax investigation procedures, excluding criminal procedures, needs to be allowed given that the right to record tax investigation is specifically guaranteed along with sufficient procedural legal provisions. Moreover, it highlights the unclear basis on which the provisions of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigation, which are guaranteed in administrative investigations, do not apply to tax investigations. Article 3, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 5 of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigation is unconstitutional on the grounds that there is a need to ensure that the right to record tax investigation is more guaranteed for the protection of taxpayers in the area of ​​tax administration than in the area of ​​general administrative law, and the need for amendment.

A Study on the Problems and Improvement of Investigation in the Act on Anti-TERRORISM for the Protection of Citizens and Public Security

Park Woong-shin J-INSTITUTE 2017 Robotics & AI Ethics Vol.2 No.1

The provisions of the “Act On Anti-Terrorism For The Protection Of Citizens And Public Security(Act on Anti-Terrorism)” of 2016, which are concerned with the limitation of the human rights, have been continuously dis-cussed since the 18th National Assembly, and the provisions of the current law have balanced at least the security rights of the people and the fundamental rights of the human rights. However, there is a system deviating from the center of the controversy even though there is a possibility of infringing on the fundamental rights of the people. It is the right of investigation by the staff of National Intelligence Service prescribed in Articles 2 and 9 of the Act on Anti-Terrorism. The investigation of the “Act on Anti-Terrorism” is similar to the preliminary domain investigation in Germany, but it is futuristic in that it aims to prevent crime, but at the same time, And the process of searching for relevant information in a situation where the existence of the allegation is uncertain. The problem is, in principle, that there is no provision on the subject, scope and limitations of the right to investigate, even though the exercise of the investigation, which has a precautionary nature, may infringe the fundamental rights of the people as de-scribed above. First, this study explores the legal nature of the right to investigate “Act on Anti-Terrorism” and opens up the possibility of applying the due process principles. Next, I pointed out the problems of criminal law in the field investigation and submission order system, which is the concrete type of investigation, and suggested ways to improve them. In other words, the specific type of investigation is substantially similar to the compulsory disposition, and the lawful procedure such as the consti-tutional warrant is stifled as the cause of the investigation. In this study, we explored problems and remedies for field investigation and submission order, which are highly similar to those of forced disposal.

피의자의 허위자백 방지를 위한 조사기법의 고도화 방안 : 일본 연구회의 조사 및 수사기법 고도화를 위한 최종보고를 중심으로

김영수 경찰대학 치안정책연구소 2013 치안정책연구 Vol.27 No.1

The strongest evidence that police can get is a confession. However, a criticism that says the current investigation customs are overly centered around confession has been brought up not only in Korea but also in developed countries like the United States. Especially in Japan, a series of judgments of acquittal on defendants who had been indicted through police investigation relied mainly on verbal or written confession evoked public criticisms that the entire police investigation system might be flawed. Alarmed by this, the Japanese National Public Safety Commission launched a research group for the sophistication of investigation methods and questioning. For the following two years, they showed a blueprint for the future by researching means of making investigation process more transparent and more sophisticated. The cases of false confession of innocent suspects that threatened the foundation of crime investigation of Japanese police can always happen in our investigation environment. Therefore, an investigator should be well aware of the theoretical mechanisms of how an innocent suspect comes to make a false confession. An investigator's excessive enthusiasm can drive an innocent suspect to make a false confession. With this problem in mind, this paper suggests solutions to prevent false confession: complete transparency of investigation process, monitoring rules for maintaining an appropriate level of suspect investigation, guidelines for listening to suspect's confession, approval of the use of expert opinions in identifying false confession, physical improvements to the interrogation room, more extensive education of police investigators, and consideration of enacting new investigation methods. Police should make an every effort to improve criminal justice system which involves the enhancement of investigation capacity to prevent false confession. 경찰관이 피의자를 수사하여 얻을 수 있는 가장 강력한 증거는 자백이다. 그러나 자백 위주의 수사관행에 대한 비판은 우리나라뿐만 아니라 미국 등 선진국에서도 문제점으로 지적되고 있다. 특히, 우리나라와 형사사법체계가 비슷한 일본 경찰에서는 수년 전부터 조서 및 자백 중심의 수사 방식에 의해 체포된 피의자에 대해 무죄 판결이 계속됨에 따라, 국민들로부터 경찰 수사의 총체적 부실이라는 비난을 받았다. 이에 대해 커다란 위기의식을 느낀 일본 국가공안위원회는 『수사기법, 취조의 고도화를 위한 연구회』를 발족한 뒤 2년여에 걸쳐, 조사의 가시화와 수사기법의 고도화 방안을 검토하여 그 방향성을 제시하였다. 이와 같이 일본 경찰 형사수사의 근간이 흔들릴 정도로 문제가 된 무고한 피의자에 의한 허위자백 사례는 우리나라 수사 환경에서도 예외가 될 수 없다. 이러한 문제의식 하에서 본고에서는 허위자백 방지를 위한 대책방안으로 조사 과정의 가시화 전면 실시, 피의자 조사 적정화(適正化)를 위한 감독 규칙 제정, 피의자 진술 청취 가이드 라인 제정, 허위자백에 대한 전문가 증언의 허용, 조사실의 물리적 환경 개선, 조사 경찰관에 대한 교육 강화, 새로운 수사기법의 도입 필요성 검토 등에 대한 대응책을 제시하였다. 경찰에서는 허위자백 방지를 위한 수사력 향상 방안 등 형사사법제도의 획기적 개선을 주도적으로 검토해야 할 것이다.

수사로 활용될 수 있는 행정조사의 법적 쟁점- 실무자의 관점에서 -

이재구,이호용 한양대학교 법학연구소 2018 법학논총 Vol.35 No.2

As the environment of contemporary administration is getting complicated and specialized each day, the administration was changed from passive administration like modern night-watch state obtaining data at the office and working mainly for national defence and public security to active administration of enhancing people's welfare and restriction of law violation. One of the ways to response people's expectation is administrative investigation. Through administrative investigation public servants can get more useful data and use them for administration decision and understanding administration environment for various policy decision and confirming and restricting law violation. However, there are various problems in conducting the administrative investigation. Above all, the illegality of conducting administrative investigation without a legal basis, and the violation about the principle of proportion in the meaning of excessiveness, in spite of a legal basis. Along with this, the problem of fairness in choosing the objects of the administrative investigation such as political purpose investigation is being raised, and the cases which drive examinees into difficult situation occurs frequently as the administrative investigations are overused to get purposes diverging from the original purpose or repeated investigations. Fortunately Act on Administrative Investigations and Framework Act on Administrative Procedures were taken effect, so the problems of the administrative investigations were greatly reduced, though they were not perfectly solved. And in case that the administrative investigation leads to criminal investigation, there is a great risk that the defence right or basic human right of examinees could be infringed, because the data obtained by administrative investigation is finally used as data or evidence for criminal investigation. So the means of the administrative investigation is a very useful tool for the administrative decision which is its result, but the power of the administrative investigation executed in the course is so powerful and may already exceeded certain limit simply to be controled by the Act on Administrative Investigation or proportion principle etc. Even though we could not deny administrative investigation. Because if there is no administrative investigation, there is no administration activity. In conclusion, there should be a high degree of value judgement and people’s agreement to reach a suitable compromise between securing the public benefit and hurting the examinee’s rights and interest. 현대 행정 환경이 날마다 복잡해지고 전문화되면서 행정은 종래 야경국가시대의 수동적 태도에서 벗어나 적극적 태도로 변화하였다. 공무원들은 행정조사를 통해 보다 유용한 정보를 얻을 수 있으며 그것들은 행정결정과 다양한 결정 정책 및 법위반을 통제하기 위한 행정환경을 조성할 수 있다. 그러나 행정조사를 수행하는 데에는 여러 가지 문제점이 수반될 수 있다. 무엇보다 법적인 근거가 없는 행정조사의 불법성, 법적인 근거에도 불구하고 비례 원칙에 대한 위반. 진술거부권 및 영장주의의 미적용, 행정조사 거부에 대한 실력행사, 법위반 내용 및 변호인등 선임권 미고지 등이 그러한 문제이다. 이와 함께 정치적 목적의 수사와 같은 행정 조사의 경우 그 대상을 선택함에 있어 공정성 문제가 제기되고 있으며 행정 조사를 과도하게 사용하여 본래 목적과 다른 목적을 가지기 때문에 피조사자를 어려운 상황으로 몰아가는 사례가 빈번하게 발생한다. 다행스럽게도 행정조사기본법, 행정절차법이 발효되어 행정조사의 문제점이 줄어들 긴하였으나, 완전히 해결되지는 않았다. 더구나 행정조사가 수사로 이어질 경우 행정적 조사에 의해 확보된 자료가 최종적으로 범죄 수사의 자료 또는 증거로 사용되기 때문에 피조사자의 방어권 또는 기본권이 침해받을 위험이 크다. 행정조사 없는 행정활동은 없다고 할 수 있을 정도로 행정조사라는 수단은 결과적으로는 행정결정을 위한 매우 유용한 도구이지만 비례원칙 위반 등 과정에서 실행되는 행정조사의 권한이 너무 강력하여 이미 행정법에 의해 통제될 수 있는 한계를 넘고 있다고 할 수 있다. 결론적으로 행정조사가 갖는 공익적 기능과 침해될 수 있는 피조사자의 사익을 형량하기 위하여 높은 수준의 가치판단과 합의가 요구된다. 이 논문에서는 수사로 활용될 수 있는 행정조사 과정에서 발생할 수 있는 법적 쟁점들, 예컨대 진술거부권, 영장주의의 적용, 행정조사 거부에 대한 실력행사, 법위반 내용 및 변호인등 선임권 고지 등에 대하여 다루어보았다. 앞으로 이 논문에서 제시된 의견이 행정조사기본법 혹은 개별행정법상 행정조사에 관한 규정을 수립하는데 도움이 되길 기대한다.

법이 정하지 않은 수사방법과 그 규제방안에 관한 연구

서거석 ( Seo Geo Seog ),양태규 ( Yang Tae Gyu ) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2001 法學硏究 Vol.22 No.-

하자있는 세무조사에 근거한 과세처분의 효력

김완석 한국조세법학회 2019 조세논총 Vol.4 No.1

The tax investigation is the act to ask questions or to inspect or investigate the accounting books, documents and other articles with the aim of tax assessment. As a kind of administrative investigation purported for enforcement of the taxation authority of the government, the tax investigation is not only indispensable for collection of the taxation data, verification of accuracy of the tax returns filed and others but it ultimately serves the role to prevent the tax evasion and to encourage the faithful filing of tax returns by taxpayers. However, since the tax investigations have the significant potential to undermine the business activities, the peace in life and the property right of the tax payers, the provisions necessary for protection of the rights of taxpayers have been established in relation to the procedures of tax investigation such as the section titled ‘Rights of Taxpayers’ in Chapter 7-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In this respect, in case the tax investigation is carried out in violation of the provisions for protection of the rights of taxpayers, the effect of the disposition imposing taxes based on the corresponding tax investigation can be questioned but the disposition of taxation on the basis of the illegal tax investigation may well be deemed illegal too. In a slightly different perspective, in case the disposition of taxation as a result of tax investigation is revoked by the decision from the objection procedure or the judgment from the administrative litigation due to the flaws related to the tax investigation, it can be questioned whether the taxation authority can be allowed to effect the disposition of taxation anew after supplementing the illegal causes. These questions may need to be considered after distinguishing the cases between those caused by the flaws related to the procedure of tax investigation and those related to the flaws in the taxation procedure after completion of the tax investigation. 세무조사란 과세처분을 하기 위하여 납세자에게 질문을 하거나 해당 장부・서류 또는 그 밖의 물건을 검사・조사하는 행위이다. 이와 같은 세무조사는 국가의 과세권을 실현하기 위한 행정조사의 일종인데, 과세자료의 수집 또는 신고내용의 정확성 검증 등을 위하여 필요불가결할 뿐만 아니라 종국적으로는 조세의 탈루를 막고 납세자의 성실한 신고를 담보하는 기능을 수행한다. 그러나 세무조사는 납세자의 영업활동 및 사생활의 평온이나 재산권을 침해할 위험성이 크기 때문에 국세기본법은 제7장의2에서 ‘납세자의 권리’라는 장을 두어 세무조사절차에서의 납세자의 권리보호에 필요한 규정들을 두고 있다. 그런데 세무조사가 납세자의 권리보호에 관한 규정에 위반하여 이루어진 경우에 그 세무조사에 기초한 과세처분의 효력이 문제가 된다. 세무조사에 의하여 수집된 과세정보가 과세처분의 기초가 되는 것이므로 세무조사는 과세처분을 하기 위한 일련의 절차라고 볼 수 있는 점과 절차상의 하자가 독자적 취소사유에 해당하는 점 등을 고려하여 볼 때 세무조사 절차에서의 하자는 바로 과세처분의 하자를 이루는 것이다. 즉, 위법한 세무조사에 터 잡은 과세처분 또한 위법하여 그 효력을 유지하기 어렵다고 하겠다. 세무조사에서의 하자의 정도(하자의 내용상 중대성 및 외관상 명백성)에 따라서 그에 근거한 과세처분은 무효로 되거나 취소의 대상이 된다. 다음으로 세무조사의 하자로 인하여 그 세무조사에 근거한 과세처분이 이의신청 등의 결정이나 행정소송의 판결에 의하여 취소된 경우에 과세관청은 그 위법사유를 보완하여 다시 새로운 과세처분을 할 수 있는지가 문제이다. 세무조사 실시과정에 하자가 있는 경우 그와 같은 위법한 세무조사를 통하여 획득한 과세자료에 대해서는 설령 실체적 정당성을 갖추었다고 하더라도 절차적 정당성이 없으므로 그 증거가치를 인정하기 어렵다고 하겠다. 따라서 세무조사 실시과정상의 하자로 인하여 과세처분이 취소되었다면 재처분이 어렵다고 해석하여야 한다. 그러나 세무조사 결과에 대한 통지 또는 과세예고통지 없이 행한 과세처분이나 과세전적부심사의 청구전 또는 결정전에 행한 과세처분과 같이 세무조사가 종료된 후 과세절차에 있어서의 하자에 기인한 과세처분의 경우에는 법리상 재처분이 가능한 것으로 새겨야 할 것이다.