해상에서 경찰관직무집행법 적용의 한계에 관한 고찰: 경직법 제3조 불심검문을 중심으로

고명석,박주상 한국치안행정학회 2022 한국치안행정논집 Vol.19 No.4

As stipulated in the Coast Guard Act, Coast Guard exist to protect maritime sovereignty in the sea, establish marine safety and security (Article 1), maintain public well-being and order in the sea (Article 14 (2)), and prevent and respond to risks to public well-being in the sea (Article 14 (3)). In Articles 3 and 2 of the National Police and Self-Governing Police Act, the police also specify the scope of the police's duties, such as "protection of people's lives, bodies, and property," "prevention and suppression investigation of crimes," and "maintain public well-being and order. Coast Guard and land police will exercise police power for the national purpose of "maintaining public well-being and order," which is the purpose or duty of the police, only because the space or place of force exercise is different. Accordingly, as a general law for exercising police power, there is the Act on The Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Police Officer, which is based on both land police and Coast Guard. The Act stipulates the scope of police officers' duties (Article 2), sudden questioning (Article 3), protection measures (Article 4), prevention of risk (Article 5), prevention and restraint of crime (Article 7), access to prevent risk (Article 7), confirmation of facts (Article 8), and collection of information (Article 9). There is a big difference between sea and land in the physical environment in which police power is invoked. As a general basis for the exercise of police power, the Act on The Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Police Officer is applied to maritime sites as well. However, there are many limitations and practical restrictions in applying the Act on The Performance of Duties by Police Officers at sea. This is because the job performance space applying this law is not only created on the premise of an onshore environment, but is also designed to be applied by the individual national power of police officers when performing their duties. The invocation of police power at sea has no choice but to be carried out by means of vessels, and it is common to operate in units of ships such as police ships and counterparts rather than individual units of police officers. This is also remarkable in terms of institutional aspects such as maritime law regulations and practical aspects such as police action Among the means of police authority stipulated in the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, sudden questioning is especially widely used at crime sites on land or rally sites, and is frequently used at sea. The sudden questioning is efficient from the perspective of police officers, but at the same time, it has a strong ambivalence that is likely to infringe on the basic rights of the people. The purpose of this study is to explore the procedures and methods of standard police disposition suitable for the maritime environment while protecting the rights and interests of the people at sea. To this end, we will examine the legal nature and contents of the sudden questioning, which is a representative standard disposition under the Act on The Performance of Duties by Police Officers. And we will examine whether police actions, such as sudden questioning designed on the premise of land, bring legal and factual limitations and restrictions at sea. As an improvement plan, I will propose an alternative to enacting (tentative name) the Act on The Performance of Duties by Police Officers at sea. 해양경찰은 「해양경찰법」에 규정된 것처럼, 해양주권을 수호하고 해양 안전과 치안을 확립하고(제1 조), 해양에서 공공의 안녕과 질서유지를 하며(제14조제2항), 해양에서 공공안녕에 대한 위험의 예방과 대응(제14조제3항)을 하기 위하여 존재하는 조직이다. 한편, 「국가경찰과 자치경찰의 조직 및 운영에 관한 법률」 제3조와 「경찰관직무집행법」 제2조에 경찰의 직무범위로서 ‘국민의 생명·신체 및 재산의 보호’ 나 ‘범죄의 예방·진압 수사’‘공공의 안녕과 질서유지’등을 명시하고 있다. 해양경찰과 육상경찰은 경찰력 행사의 공간이나 장소가 상이하지만, 경찰의 목적 또는 직무인 ‘공공의 안녕과 질서유지’라는 국가적 목적을 위해서 경찰권을 발동하게 되는 것은 같은 원리이다. 이에 따라 경찰권 발동에 대한 일반법으로서 육상경찰과 해양경찰이 모두 근거를 두고 있는 「경찰관직무집행법」이 있다. 동법에는 경찰관의 직무수행 범위(제2조), 불심검문(제3조), 보호조치(제4조), 위험 발생의 방지(제5조), 범죄의 예방과 제지(제6조), 위험 방지를 위한 출입(제7조), 사실의 확인(제8조), 정보의 수집 등(제9조)과 같이 경찰관이 직무수행을 할 때 필요한 일반적 직무내용을 규정하고 있다. 경찰권 발동의 일반적 근거로서 「경찰관직무집행법」은 육상뿐 아니라 해상 현장에서도 그대로 적용 하고 있다. 그런데 해상과 육상은 경찰권 발동의 물리적 환경에 있어 크게 차이가 난다. 그러므로 「경찰 관직무집행법」을 육상과 동일한 방식으로 해상에서 적용하는 데에는 많은 한계와 현실적인 제약이 따른 다. 동 법은 직무수행 공간이 육상 환경을 전제로 만들어졌을 뿐만 아니라, 경찰관이라는 개인 단위 국가 권력이 업무를 수행할 때 적용할 수 있도록 설계되어 있기 때문이다. 해상에서 경찰권의 발동은 함정을 수단으로 집행될 수 밖에 없으며, 경찰관 개인단위보다 경찰함정과 상대 선박 등 선박 단위로 활동하는 것이 일반적이다. 이점은 해사법규 등 제도적 측면이나 경찰작용 등 현실적 측면에서도 마찬가지다. 「경찰관직무집행법」에 규정된 경찰권의 수단 중에서 특히 불심검문은 실제 육상의 범죄 현장이나 집회 현장 등에서 광범위하게 활용되고 있으며, 해상에서도 빈번히 활용되고 있다. 불심검문은 경찰관 입장에서 효율적이지만, 동시에 국민의 기본권을 침해할 소지가 농후한 양면성을 가지고 있다. 이 연구는 해상에서 국민의 권익을 보호하면서도 해양 환경에 알맞은 경찰 표준처분의 절차와 방법을 탐색해보는데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해서 「경찰관직무집행법」상 대표적인 표준처분인 불심검문에 대하여 법적 성격, 내용을 살펴보겠다. 이어서 육상을 전제로 설계된 불심검문 등 경찰작용이 해상에서 어떻게 법적·사실적 한계와 제약을 가져오는지 검토해 보겠다. 나아가 이 연구의 개선방안으로서 (가칭)「해양경 찰관직무집행법」을 제정하는 대안을 제시해 보겠다.

군사법경찰관(헌병)의 직무집행 관련법규 정비에 관한 연구

김양현 ( Yang Hyun Kim ),안광현 ( Kwang Hyun An ),고제원 ( Jae Won Koh ) 한국경찰학회 2013 한국경찰학회보 Vol.15 No.3

The military law police, which is representative law enforcement agency under existing Military Court Law in the Republic of Korea, has more command and enforcement rights than other arms of service to maintain order, regulation and combat power force of the Army. The mission of the military police, however, has been conducted under presidential decrees which has insufficient grounds or statues framed by the delegation of authority. The objective of the paper would explore pressing concerns about rearrangement plan for「Act on the Performance of Duties by Military Law Police」and suggest the draft of the legislation within the cognizance of these vulnerability. Specific proposals of the draft would be amended underlying on current「Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers」. Both agencies of the military law police and the civilian police has same ultimate object: Crime Prevention. Direct application of the 「Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers」, however, could be risen certain issues because each organization exists for different targets: the people belong to the army and the citizen. Nevertheless, the author claims that 「Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers」should be formed the basis of rearrangement plan when the 「Act on the Performance of Duties by Military Law Police」is amended in the Assembly. Legal and institutional rearrangement would be urgent issue for proper performance of military police`s duties because they actively contribute to national security even though the military police fulfill their duties for different target to the police.

일본 경찰관직무집행법에 관한 법적 고찰

구형근 ( Hyungkeun Gu ) 사단법인 아시아문화학술원 2021 인문사회 21 Vol.12 No.3

현행 우리의 경찰관직무집행법은 법률의 명칭이나 내용체계 등에서 보듯이 일본의 경찰관직무집행법을 모델로 하여 제정된 사정 등을 감안한다면 우리의 경찰관직무집행법의 모태가 되는 일본 경찰관직무집행법의 제 규정에 내재하는 법적 평가에 대한 일본에서의 논의들은 우리 경찰관직무집행법의 적용과 해석에 있어 많은 시사점을 주고 있다. 일본에서의 지배적 견해는 경찰관직무집행법이 규정하는 수단은 강제수단뿐만 아니라 기존에 임의수단으로 간주되어 온 조치라도, 본인의 뜻에 반하는 실력행사에 대해서는 객관적으로 명료하게 인정할 수 있는 개별적이고 구체적인 사실로부터 그 정당성이 도출되지 않으면 안 된다. 또한 공동의 안녕과 질서유지라는 경찰의 시점에서 공익상의 필요성을 도출하고, 이를 상대방 국민에게 발생하는 불이익과 단순 비교하여 전자의 이익이 더 중요하다고 결론짓는 것만으로는 경찰관이 사용하는 침해적인 유형력 행사의 실질적인 정당화 근거를 도출할 수 없다. Our current Act on the Performance Duties by Police Officers is Considering the circumstances modeled after Japan’s Act on the Performance Duties by Police Officers, Japan’s discussions on the legal evaluation of the Japanese Act on the Performance Duties by Police Officers have many implications for the application and interpretation of the law. In Japan, the dominant view is that the means prescribed by the Act on the Performance Duties by Police Officers are not only compulsory but also arbitrary measures, but the justification must be derived from individual and specific facts that can be objectively clearly acknowledged against one’s will. In addition, drawing public interest needs at the police’s point of view of public welfare and maintaining order, and simply comparing them to disadvantages to the other people, cannot produce substantial justification for the infringement of tangible exercise used by police officers.

경찰손실보상제도의 개선방안

정태종 전북대학교 부설법학연구소 2017 法學硏究 Vol.54 No.-

When a police officer caused a damage in the course of executing legitimate police work, there was no specific provision for compensation for a loss in the past. As a result, it was difficult to acquire proper compensation. In addition to this, for a police officer, it was recognized not guilty in his or her legitimate work, but there were cases where a law enforcement officer was declared guilty in civil stance. It made their acts of law enforcement less active and shrinking and consequently, it wasn’t helpful even for the protection of the people’s interests. Due to these problems, a voice for needing the legal ground for police compensation for loss caused in the course of executing police legitimate duties was raised, and the National Assembly passed the revision of ‘the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers’, which newly included the provision of police compensations, and enacted it from April 6, 2014. It means a lot that the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers was newly established to pave a soldier ground for protection of the people’s rights. On the other hand, it is important in that the law created conditions and environment where law enforcement officers can actively get involved in their works. However, there still remain some areas to be improved such as the establishment of compensatory procedures, appeal proceedings, and compensatory procedures for non-property infringements, e.g. life or body, which were left unequipped in the course of introducing police compensation system. This paper is aimed to overview the contents of police compensation system related to the execution of their duties, examine the problems, and find improvements. 종래 경찰관의 적법한 직무집행으로 피해를 입는 경우에는 이에 대한 보상규정이 없어서 경찰관의 적법한 직무집행으로 피해가 발생한 때에는 적절한 보상이 이루어지기 어려울 뿐 만 아니라, 형사상으로는 적법한 직무수행으로 인정되었음에도 불구하고 민사상으로는 경찰 관의 불법행위책임이 인정되는 경우가 있어 경찰의 안정적인 직무수행을 위축시키고 결과적 으로는 국민의 권익보호에도 도움이 되지 않았다. 이러한 문제점으로 인하여 경찰관의 적법 한 직무행위에 대한 손실보상의 근거의 필요성이 제기되었다. 국회는 2013년 3월 5일 손실 보상규정을 신설하는 내용의「경찰관직무집행법」개정안을 통과시켰고, 지난 2014년 4월 6일 부터 시행되었다. 「경찰관직무집행법」에 손실보상규정을 신설한 것은 국민의 권리구제를 보다 충실하게 할 수 있는 토대를 마련하였다는 점에 의의가 있고, 다른 한편으로는 경찰관이 직무집행에 적극 적으로 임할 수 있는 여건을 조성하였다는 점에 의미를 부여할 수 있다. 다만 경찰손실보상 제도의 도입과정에서 미비한 채로 남아 있는 손실보상절차의 확립과 이에 대한 불복절차, 생 명⋅신체 등 비재산적 침해에 대한 손실보상규정의 불비 등의 개선사항이 여전히 과제로 남 아 있다. 이 글에서는 경찰관의 직무수행에 대한 손실보상제도의 내용을 개관하고, 경찰손실 보상제도가 갖고 있는 문제점을 살피고, 이에 대한 개선방안을 검토하고자 한다.

경찰법상 일반수권에 의한 위험방지에 관한 연구

이재삼(Jae Sam. Lee) 유럽헌법학회 2008 유럽헌법연구 Vol.3 No.-

The police are defined as national activities(that is, a state function) designed either to protect an individual or the public from a danger threatening the public peace and order, or to prevent harm by removing disturbances endangering public peace and order. It is defined in the Article 3 of the Police Law that `the police are obligated to protect the people`s life, body and property and to maintain the public peace and order. Also in the Article 2-5 of the Law Concerning the Police Officer`s Performance of Duties `upholding the public peace and maintaining the public order` are defined as the primary duty of the police officer. In other words the main duties of the police include crime prevention, suppression and criminal investigation, guarding, key figures escort, counter-espionage operations, compilation, collection and distribution of information on public peace and order, maintaining a traffic order and preventing danger, and other responsibilities such as upholding the public peace and order. And the Article 5-1 of the Law Concerning the Police Officer`s Performance of Duties stipulates that `police officers shall warn the people gathered on the spot, caretakers or otherwise related persons of the impending dangers of a natural disaster, a disturbance, loss and damage, a traffic accident, explosion, appearance of a mad dog or galloping horse, extreme state of disorder or other dangers, and may detain or evacuate the endangered person or take the necessary measures or instruct the people gathered on the spot, caretakers or otherwise related persons to take the necessary measures.` In short the police are required to fulfill their commissioned duty of maintaining public order, thereby protecting the people`s freedom and rights while efficiently performing the duty of the police. For this reason the police`s crime prevention and control, prevention of traffic dangers, and prevention of dangers resulting from firearms, explosives, gunshot, a rifle range, an assembly and demonstration, businesses offering food and entertainment, a speculative act, which are based on the general commission provisions of the Police Law, are all too important. However, the police are unable to engage in the prevention of dangers without legal foundation, even though preventing dangers belong to the police administration. In other words, the office regulations of the police based on the Police Law should not bring about the restriction of the rights or disadvantage to the person in question. Since police functions, in general, belong to the category of 침해행정, and since police actions are accomplished in the form of giving orders or violating the rights of the person in question, such actions require legal foundation complying with the principles that the performance of administrative functions should be based on the law. The Article 1-2 of the Law Concerning the Police Officer`s Performance of Duties stipulates that `the authority of a police officer shall be exercised to the minimum extent necessary for his or her performance of the duties and shall never be abused.` That is, the Law Concerning the Police Officer`s Performance of Duties emphasizes the principles of the least violation and prevention of the abuse.

경찰관 대상 공무집행방해죄에 관한 판례의 경향과 문제점

김태명 한국경찰법학회 2022 경찰법연구 Vol.20 No.3

Police officers perform the protection of the life and property of the people, the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes, and the maintenance of public security and order such as traffic control, etc. However many police officers experience obstructing of the performance of there duties. Sometimes they are assaulted, humiliated, threated, and injured by the citizens who resist them for no good reason. Most of the violence against police officers was caused by accidental acts of the drunks. However the police officers are reluctant to deal with the case due to the strict requirements to impose penalties on them. And this tendancy has caused many negative effects such as serious mental damage, passive police activities, and decrease of trust in the organization. In this year, the Ulsan Court of Appeals convicted the accused who was charged with obstruction of performance of official duties by police officers overruling the verdict of the first trial that ruled the defendant not guilty due to illegal law enforcement by police officers. In many case the Korean criminal courts has been acquitted the accused ruling that he or she resited illegal execution of official duties. This study identified and criticized the doctrines of cases in which obstruction of justice against police officers has been acquitted, and proposed proper ideas that secure the legality of law enforcement and alternatives to reinforce the limitations of the current regulation on obstruction of justice. 지난해 울산지방법원은 순찰차 안에서 경찰관에게 욕설을 하고 경찰관을 폭행하는 등 소란을 피우며 하차를 거부하는 주취자를 경찰관이 강제로 밖으로 끌어내려 하자 경찰관을 폭행한 사건에 대해 제1심법원의 무죄판결을 파기하고 유죄를 선고하였다. 그동안 법원은 위법한 공무집행으로부터 시민의 인권을 보호하기 위해 공무집행방해죄의 성립요건을 엄격하게 해석해 온 반면 상대적으로 직무를 집행하는 공무원이 행사할 수 있는 물리력의 정도는 엄격하게 제한하고 있다. 이런 상황에서 필자는 공무집행방해죄가 성립요건을 지나치게 엄격하게 해석하여 그 성립범위를 과도하게 제한하고 있지 않은지를 점검하고자 한다. 필자는 경찰관이 직무를 수행하는 과정에서 아주 일상적으로 직면하는 주취자의 난동과 이를 제지하는 경찰관에 대한 폭력행사 그리고 그러한 폭력행사를 처리하는 사법부의 태도를 최근 선고된 울산지방법원 2022.5.12. 선고 2021노470 판결을 통해 살펴보고 문제점을 지적한 다음 그 해결방안을 제시하였다.

『경찰관직무집행법』상 변화된 국가보상책임에 관한 행정법적 고찰

오준근(Oh, Jun-Gen) 한국토지공법학회 2019 土地公法硏究 Vol.87 No.-

2019년 6월 24일부터 시행되는 경찰관직무집행법 개정법률 제11조의2(손실보상) 규정은 행정법학 중 국가보상법 부분의 이론 구성 및 교육과 관련하여 주목할 만한 내용을 담고 있다. 이 규정은 경찰관의 적법한 직무집행으로 인하여 손실을 입은 자에 대한 국가보상의무를 규정하고 있는데 그 요건에 손실발생의 원인에 대하여 책임이 없는 자가 생명 신체 또는 재산상의 손실을 입은 경우와 손실발생의 원인에 대하여 책임이 있는 자가 자신의 책임에 상응하는 정도를 초과하는 생명 신체 또는 재산상의 손실을 입은 경우를 모두 포함시키고 있다. 경찰관직무집행법 상의 손실보상 규정은 경찰관의 적법한 직무집행행위를 전제로 한다.위법행위를 전제로 한 것이 아니어서 대한민국헌법 제29조와 국가배상법 에 따른 행정상 손해배상의 영역에 속하지 아니한다. 공익사업을 위하여 적법하게 재산권에 특별희생을 가하는 것이 아니어서 대한민국헌법 제23조와 공익사업을 위한 토지등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 에 따른 행정상 손실보상의 영역에도 속하지 아니한다. 따라서 필연적으로 제3의 국가보상영역에 포함될 수밖에 없다. 제3의 국가보상 영역에 대하여 행정법 교과서는 독일에서 판례법으로 형성되어온 제3의 국가보상영역 특히 수용유사침해, 수용적 침해, 희생보상청구권 등을 소개하고 이를 국내법적으로 도입할 것을 요구하는데 집중되어 있다. 개정된 경찰관직무집행법 에 규정된 손실보상 규정은 재산권 침해와 관련하여 수용유사침해이론과 수용적 침해이론을 생명 신체 의 침해와 관련하여 희생보상청구권 이론을 실정법에 반영한 것이라고 할 수 있다. 독일의경우도 독일연방경찰법 에 일반적 손실보상 규정이 들어온 다음에는 실정법을 먼저 해석한 후에 관습법에 따른 이론을 보완적으로 설명하는 방식으로 전환되어야 한다는 견해가 제시되어 있다. 이 논문은 개정된 경찰관직무집행법 이 수용유사침해이론, 수용적 침해이론, 희생보상 청구권의 이론을 반영하여 조문화하였으므로 행정법 교과서가 독일 관습법에 의하여 형성된 제3의 국가보상영역을 소개하고 국내에 도입할 것을 요구하기 보다는 이미 법제화된 국내 실정법 규정의 해석 및 적용을 먼저 하고, 독일 판례법을 보완적으로 소개함을 새로 운 방향으로 제시하고 있다. 이 방향을 적용한 대안으로 경찰관직무집행법 개정으로 새로워진 손실보상규정의 입법연혁을 제시하고, 그 구체적 내용 및 해석기준을 논술하였다. 이 논문을 계기로 행정법학상 제3의 국가보상법 영역에 대한 논의의 무게 중심이 독일 관습법의 소개에서 실정법의 해석으로 그 무게 중심이 이동될 수 있기를 기대한다. Article 11(2) of the revised Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers , which took effect on June 24, 2019, contains very notable. This regulation stipulates the duty of compensation to those who have suffered losses due to the lawful execution of police officers, The requirements include both those who are not responsible for the cause of the loss of life, body or property and those who are responsible for the cause of the loss but suffer life, body or property losses exceeding their own responsibilities. The indemnification regulation under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers is subject to the police officer s legitimate conduct of the execution of legal duty. It is not based on the premise of misconduct and therefore does not fall within the realm of administrative compensation according to the State Compensation Act . It does not legally inflict special sacrifice on property rights for public service and does not belong to the scope of administrative loss compensation. Therefore, it is inevitable that it will be included in the third national compensation area. The indemnification provisions stipulated in the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers have many features that it is difficult to incorporate directly into any of the third national compensation areas covered in the existing administrative law textbooks. An explanation could be attempted according to the respective loss compensation requirements using the theory of “Der Enteignungsgleiche Eingriff”, “Der Enteignende Eingriff” and “Der Aufoferungsanspruch”, which are developed in the German customary law. But the above theories have a common legal tradition unique to German law, so for the Republic of Korea, it can never be enough to explain the loss compensation introduced in the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers . In the Republic of Korea, such customary law is not formed by precedent like in Germany and the scholars arguments were not accepted by the court. Because the actual law specifically prescribed indemnification, discussions of administrative law should be shifted to interpretations of the actual law, not to the introduction of the customary law in Germany. This paper stems from the small wish that the Korean administrative law textbook would actively accept the changes in the actual law concerning the national compensation liability made in the third area.

경찰의 개인정보 수집·이용에 대한 법치국가적 통제의 필요성 – 수사 목적의 개인정보 처리를 중심으로 –

이호중 서강대학교 법학연구소 2024 서강법률논총 Vol.13 No.1

The police collect and use personal informations in a wide variety of ways, not only for criminal investigation, but also for the performance of duties of the police officer(Article 2 of Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers). Today, the right to self-determination of personal information is firmly recognized as a fundamental right in the Constitution, and the collection and use of personal information without the consent of the information subject in the course of performing police duties corresponds to the exercise of police power that limits the right to self-determination of personal information. However, in the current legal system, the specific authority rules governing the processing of personal information, such as the collection and use of personal information by the police, are not clearly established. This paper critically examines the problem that there is virtually no rule-of-law control system over the collection and use of personal information by the police, and so proposes a method to control the police's collection and use of personal informations. First, the view that interprets Article 2 of Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers and Article 15 (1) of the Personal Information Protection Act as a general provision of authority for the collection of personal information by the police is not justified, because that opinion nullifies the control system based on the ‘rule of law’ principles over the exercise of police power. In addition, Article 199 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act may not be legitimate legal grounds for an investigative agency to request the provision of personal information from other agencies. Therefore, fundamental reform is absolutely necessary. The purpose of collecting personal information should be clearly and specifically established, and the scope, requirements, and procedures for collecting personal information necessary to achieve the police purpose should be clearly defined according to the principle of proportionality. In addition, in relation to the collection of personal information without warrant for the purpose of investigation by Article 18 (2) 7 of the Personal Information Protection Act, we must control the risk of abuse through applying the warrant principle. And more stringent requirements and procedures should be established for the collection of sensitive informations.

경찰관직무집행법에 관한 연구 - 문제점 및 개정방안을 중심으로

감창휘(Kim Chang Hwee) 한국토지공법학회 2007 土地公法硏究 Vol.37 No.2

  The objective of the police is to keep public well-being or order in society. For this objective, the nation has imposed the action of order and compulsion on its people by means of the police action, which exercises it through the police organization as a necessary entity. Given that the police action has many factors to be able to invade the people"s rights, its legal basis is absolutely required. What should be considered first and foremost in police activities is to prevent the abuse of police authority along with the effective exercise of that authority. It is currently Act on the Performance of Duties by Police that plays a role as the first basic law and general law which control the police activities.<BR>  However, Act on the Performance of Duties by Police serves as a general law on the police action, while it poses a serious problem related to the system. This act, made in 1953, went through 8-time revisions; however, there was only the addition and removal of legal texts in part depending upon temporary circumstances. As a result, Act on the Performance of Duties by Police has not reflected and regulated today"s reality, which poses many problems in the light of advanced theories of the police act. In other words, it has been raised that general delegation of power or such problems as responsibility, compulsion, and cost of the police and compensation for loss are not legislated or are a flaw in the legal system.<BR>  Hence, in this study, I investigated problems and proposals for the revising of Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers as above-mentioned.

경직법상 경찰수권 규정체계의 입법적 개선

이성용 ( Sung-yong Lee ) 한국경찰법학회 2016 경찰법연구 Vol.14 No.1

This research analyze the problem of the act on the performance of duties by police officers as a general regulation of police power and propose of revision of the law. The current police law system provide the police power mostly in the perspective of judicial power instead of administrative power. So the appropriate police power for the protection of citizen’s benefit and protection of the law is neglected. The continental law system has the tradition of Pandekten system. According to this, the lawmaker should find the benefits and protections of laws in many concrete cases and make the abstract rule. But the korean police power was developed on a case-by-case basis and lead to a result of application limit. Especially the police power regulations in “the act on the performance of duties by police officers” overlooks the principle of proportionality, that requires the action of police stage by stage. For example, the police detention, even though it is the most powerful police action, appears beforehand in “the act on the performance of duties by police officers.” Moreover the individual provisions of police power in this act, such as police detention, police act against the danger and crime deterrence act don’t reflect the actual necessity for the protection of citizen. Finally, this research suggest the revision of the act, that regulates the police power gradationally, as follows: police warning and deterrence- forced segregation-police detention.