미국 행정법상 행정부의 법률해석에 관한 사법심사의 범위

정하명(Jeong Ha-Myoung) 한국비교공법학회 2007 公法學硏究 Vol.8 No.2

In the US, the agency normally has adjudication power and rule-making power and it is called as the fourth branch. The Administrative Procedure Act provided the procedural safeguards for formal or informal rule-making, and adjudication. In practice, the agency usually applies informal rule-making process when it tries to make its policy with rule-making. The formal rulemaking procedure brought too much burden when the agency applied it to promulgate its policy. Administrative Procedure Act(5 U.S.C. §706 (2000)) provides the court shall apply arbitrary and capricious standard when it review agency's informal rule-making. The question is what does arbitrary and capricious mean however. In 1970s and 1980s, the court ruled that arbitrary and capricious standard meant hard look judicial review. Hard-look judicial review was understood as a form of heightened scrutiny of the rationale of agency decisions. Citizens to Pres. Overton Park v. Volpe (401 U.S. 416(1971)), Motor Vehicles Mfg. Ass'n v. State Farm(463 U.S. 29 (1983)). The hard-look judicial review brought a lot of difficulties when the agency applied informal rule-making procedure. The administrative rule-making faced ossification problems. The informal rule-making procedures were not available options for agency when agency want to formulate its policy through rule-making because of hard judicial review The Court finally relaxed hard-look judicial review and applied Chevron deference doctrine in 1984, Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC (467 U.S. 837). According to Chevron deference doctrine, the agency could claim deference of its interpretation when the Congress delegated authority to the agency to make rules carrying the force of law. According to the doctrine, the statute's ambiguity should be resolved by the agency not the court. The Court recently reaffirmed the Chevron deference doctrine in NCTA v. Brand X Internet Service(125 S.Ct. 2688 (2005)). In Gonzales v. Oregon(126 S. Ct. 904 (2006)), the U.S Supreme Court held that the Attorney General interpretation of certain provisions of the Controlled Substance Act was not entitled to Chevron deference. The Supreme Court re-enforced judicial review of agency's interpretive rule when the rule was adapted by the agency without taking rule-making procedure in Gonzales v. Oregon.

미국행정법의 행정입법에 대한 집행전 사법심사에 대한 연구― Abbott 판결과 그 시사점을 중심으로 ―

황의관 한국공법학회 2013 공법연구 Vol.42 No.1

This article focuses on the pre-enforcement judicial review of agency rule in U.S. Supreme Court’s Abbott case and subsequent cases. The Supreme Court has long held that an agency rule is not reviewable unless and until it is ripe for review. Until 1967, it was extremely difficult to obtain judicial review of agency before the rule was applied in a particular case because courts concluded that a rule rarely is ripe review unless and until it is applied in a particular case. That difficulty of ripeness standard had enormous practical effects. Most agency rules were never subject to judicial review. That situation changed dramatically with the Supreme Court’s issuance of its landmark opinion in Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner. The Court held the everytime rule ripe for pre-enforcement review by applying a new three-part test: (1) Is there evidence that Congress intended to preclude pre-enforcement of rule issued to implement the statute at issue? (2) Are the issues raised appropriate for judicial resolution at this time and in the abstract context of pre-enforcement review? (3) Would the petitioner suffer hardship if review were deferred until the agency’s application of the rule in a particular case allows the court to obtain a better understanding of the rule and its factual components. The Court stated the first step in the negative, rather than asking whether there was evidence that Congress intended to authorize pre-enforcement review. However, in its 1994 opinion in Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, the Court suggested that it was no longer interpreting the first part of the Abbott test as it did ar the time it decided Abbott. Therefore ripeness doctrine of judicial review of pre-enforcement of agency rule comprised of two-part test that is (2), (3) components at Abbott test. In its 1993 opinion in Reno v. Catholic Social Services, the Court suggested that rules governing eligibility for government benefits rarely would qualify for pre-application review because, unlike regulatory rules, benefit eligibility rules do not create hardships by imposing penalties on those who violate them. In the comparative law study viewpoint, judicial review doctrine of agency rule in U.S. is the abstract context control of administrative legislative instruments. On the other hand, Korea’s judicial review system of agency rule is the concrete context control of agency rules which is similar to pre-Abbott era U.S. system. The reason of Korean administrative litigation system is that concept of Korean agency action due to the that of germen administrative act, which is made up of agency’s concrete and individual act. So U.S. Supreme Court’s doctrine to control agency rule suggests that judicial review of agency rule in abstract context does not result abuse of action and restricts scope of that doctrine. The implication of the U.S. abstract context control of judicial review of agency rule provide Korean administrative law system for rethinking the jurisprudence of administrative act concept and reasonable litigation reform direction. 본 논문은 행정입법의 집행전 사법심사를 허용한 미연방대법원의 Abbott 판례를 중심으로 미국의 행정입법에 대한 규범통제를 살펴보고 이를 통해 우리 행정법에 있어서의 정책적 시사점을 발견하는데 초점을 맞추고 있다. 이를 위해 우선 미국행정법상 상황성숙성 원칙의 의미와 위상을 파악하고 Abbott 판결 이전의 연방대법원의 판례태도와 이에 대한 비판을 살펴본다. 다음으로 행정입법의 집행전 사법심사를 허용한 Abbott 판례를 상세히 고찰하여 판결내용과 함께 상황성숙성에 관한 소위 Abbott 테스트의 2가지 요건을 도출한다. 더불어 Abbott 판결과 동일한 날에 선고된 동반판례를 통해 동 판결의 의미와 동반사건과의 차이점을 확인한다. 이러한 연방대법원의 판례분석을 통해 Abbott 테스트의 2가지 요소인 ‘사법심사에의 적합성’과 ‘당사자가 겪는 어려움’의 의미와 내용을 상세하게 살펴본다. 그리고 세 번째로, Abbott 판결 이후의 연방대법원 판례를 통해 행정입법의 집행전 사법심사를 허용하는 경우에도 이의 적용에 있어서 존재하는 제한을 고찰한다. 여기에는 Abbott 판결 후의 행정입법의 집행전 사법심사의 인정여부에 관한 연방의회의 의도를 해석하는 연방대법원의 변경된 판례도 함께 살펴본다. 또한, 개별적인 행정입법의 특성에 따라 Abbott 테스트의 적용여부와 범위를 한정하는 연방대법원의 판례도 분석한다. 이를 통해, 연방대법원의 Abbott 테스트 적용범위를 파악하고 최근의 판례태도도 도출한다. 연방대법원의 행정입법에 대한 규범통제에 관한 이러한 분석을 바탕으로 현행 행정소송에서 이러한 미국행정법상 판례가 어떠한 유용성과 정책적 시사점을 제공할 수 있는지를 살펴본다. 이를 위해, 우선 현행 행정소송법상의 행정입법에 대한 규범통제를 간략히 살펴보고 연방대법원의 판례가 우리 법제에 어떠한 부분에서 기여할 수 있을지를 논증한다. 그리고 행정입법의 집행전 사법심사를 허용하더라도 이를 개별사건에서 일정한 제한을 하는 연방대법원의 판례를 통해 우리 행정소송법개정의 지향점과 행정입법의 규범통제를 허용할 경우에도 이를 일정하게 제한할 수 있다는 점을 밝힌다. 결론에선 논의한 내용을 정리하고 미국행정법상 행정입법의 규범통제제도를 통해 우리 행정법의 위상과 지향점을 발견할 수 있음을 강조한다.

미국법상 규칙의 제정권한과 구별기준

송종원 ( Jong Won Song ) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2012 世界憲法硏究 Vol.18 No.2

In America, rulemaking is administered through Administrative Procedure Act(“APA”). APA regulates ``agency`` who has the power to issue rules and whether a rule is distinguished as ``legislative`` is determined in association with APA. The scope of agency is comprehensive as APA says “agency means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency...” In particular, whether agency is given the power to issue rules is no longer contested at the phase of construing the Constitution, as traditional non-delegation doctrine is regarded now as a mere delegation standard. APA also says “Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection(notice and comment requirement) does not apply to interpretative rules, general statement of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice...” However, distinction between legislative rules which have to go through the notice and comment process and others, especially interpretative rules is quite fussy and the Supreme Court uses ``substantial impact test`` or ``force of law test`` as the needs of the case demand. When employing ``force of law test``, the Court considers ``whether in the absence of the rule there would not be an adequate basis for the agency action``, ``whether the rule interprets a legal standard or whether it makes policy``, ``whether the interpretative rule is consistent with the legislative rule it is supposedly interpreting``, ``whether the interpretative rule is inconsistent with a prior definitive interpretative rule``, or ``whether the agency contemporaneously indicated that it was issuing an interpretative rule`` to determine the legislative nature of the rules.

행정심판위원회의 재결기능방안

蔡羽奭(Chae Woo-Suk) 한국토지공법학회 2007 土地公法硏究 Vol.37 No.2

  The Korean Administrative Judgment Act separates administrative judgment agency from the agency that orders the administrative measure, and at the same time divides the judgment function into hearing decision-making function which is allocated to Administrative Judgment Commission and ruling function which is allocated to the ruling agency. Dividing the judgment agency into Administrative Judgment Commission and ruling agency is a peculiar feature of the Korean administrative judgment system which provides independence to Administrative Judgment Commission for objective fairness of the administrative judgment procedure.<BR>  Under the current legislation, ruling agency"s authority is limited to the formality of announcing the decision to the public thus raising the question of the necessity of the ruling function of such ruling agency. Although the Administrative Judgment Commission"s detailed form and authority could be brought to several debates. Thus this article will inquire into legislative debates that could surface, once the administrative judgment commission has been granted the ruling function.

경찰기관 정보공개 처분의 실태와 시사점 - 중앙행정심판위원회의 재결 분석을 중심으로 -

신관우 사단법인 한국안전문화학회 2023 안전문화연구 Vol.- No.21

The purpose of this study is to guarantee the citizen's right to request information disclosure by illuminating the actual situation of illegal or unreasonable disclosure of information by police agencies that perform the duties of maintaining public peace and order. This study examines the information disclosure procedures of public institutions and administrative judgment, which is a means of dissatisfaction with police dispositions, and examines the actual status of illegal or unjust information disclosure dispositions by police agencies through the analysis of 22 rulings of the Administrative Appeals Commission. Policy suggestions were made after reviewing the implications. When a citizen who is guaranteed the right to know requests information disclosure to the police agency, the police agency and the person in charge of information disclosure must comply with the information disclosure procedures and methods in accordance with the law and decide whether or not to disclose information. If a person requesting information disclosure is dissatisfied with the disposition of information disclosure by the police agency, he/she may request an administrative adjudication to the Administrative Appeals Commission. The Administrative Appeals Commission, which received the request for administrative adjudication, reviews and decides on the illegality or injustice of the information disclosure disposition of the police agency. In 2021, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission ruled citing or partially citing 22 cases regarding illegal or unreasonable police agency information disclosure dispositions. The implications derived from this analysis are as follows. First, there is a misunderstanding in the application of legal principles of information disclosure laws as some police agencies are refusing to disclose information by ‘without revealing specific reasons for non-disclosure’ or ‘misjudging information subject to disclosure or disclosure’. In addition, some information disclosure managers of police agencies did not comply with the procedures set forth in the Information Disclosure Act and violated them. In addition, some insufficient matters were confirmed in the management of re-disposal according to the purpose of the administrative ruling adjudication of the police agency. Based on the matters reviewed above, the proposals for the disposition of information disclosure by police agencies can be summarized as follows. First, it is necessary to collect and analyze cases of illegal and unfair rulings by police agencies every year, to produce a casebook of administrative judgment rulings on police information disclosure, and to prepare a system for regular education. Second, it is necessary to examine whether disciplinary responsibility exists for those who have violated the duty of good faith or the duty to comply with the law, which was revealed through the ruling by the Administrative Appeals Commission citing the disposition of illegal or unreasonable information disclosure by the police agency. Third, it is necessary to establish a management and supervision system that can fulfill the duty of redistribution stipulated by law according to the purpose of the ruling specified in the disposition of illegal or unreasonable information disclosure by the police agency.

행정심판 재결과 항고소송 제소기간의 기산점

류광해 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2014 서울법학 Vol.22 No.1

After the ruling in Administrative Appeals Act, when is the starting point of the period for litigation? Although the starting point is prescribed by Administrative Litigation Act Article 20, it is unequivocal in case of a partial revocation ruling, a alterative ruling and a ruling which orders an administrative agency a specified disposition accepting partially applicant's assertion and a unspecified disposition. In the above cases, I think it is not coincided with the right of access to courts, the purpose of the period of litigation system and the people's legal mind that the starting point of the period litigation is a beginning disposition or a ruling. I think it is better that the starting point is the re-disposition by Administrative Appeals Act Article 49. And I think that the Administrative Litigation Act Article 20 should be revised more precisely. 행정심판의 재결을 거쳐 행정소송으로 나아갈 경우 제소기간의 기산점을 어디로 잡아야 하는가의 문제를 재결의 종류별로 살펴보면, 여러 종류의 재결 중 일부취소명령재결, 변경명령재결, 일부 인용 특정처분명령재결, 일정처분명령재결이 있는 경우, 현행 행정소송법 제20조는 제소기간의 기산점을 명확히 규정하고 있다고 평가하기 힘들다. 위와 같은 재결이 있는 경우 제소기간의 기산점을 산정하는 기준이 되는 처분을 당초처분이나 재결로 보는 것은 국민의 재판청구권 보호, 국민의 법감정 존중, 제소기간 제도 내지 불가쟁력 제도의 취지에 부합하는 것으로 보이지 아니한다. 따라서 해석론으로 소송의 대상을 재처분으로 보거나, 아니면 대법원 2010. 6. 25. 선고 2007두12514 전원합의체 판결의 법리를 원용하는 방법으로 재처분이 있은 날 또는 재처분이 있음을 안 날로부터 제소기간이 기산되도록 해석될 필요가 있다고 생각되고, 나아가 보다 근본적으로는 입법적으로 이 문제를 명확히 하는 것이 요구된다고 생각된다.

1923~1924년 조선총독부의 세무기구 독립 정책―추진 경과와 조선·동아일보의 대응을 중심으로―

손낙구 한국근현대사학회 2011 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.59 No.-

In the early 1920’s, the Japanese-Government General of Korea planned tax system restructuring focusing on levying the propertied class to meet the financial expansion to implement the cultural ruling after its suppression over the March First Independence Movement. Prior to this restructuring, the Japanese-Government strived to figure out the commerce and industry income from June 1923 with a plan to commence newly independent tax agency. At the beginning of 1924, the Japanese-Government sketched out the plan to organize the independent tax agency, and in June at the same year, it submitted a budget proposal, amount of 620 thousands yen, to the Japanese Imperial Diet. With increased bidding to invite tax agency branches in the whole country, the five tax monitoring bureau and 102 tax office branches schedule to be located nationwide. Amid the preparations, such as securing office buildings and arranging personnel, to open new tax institutions in August was being in progress, the Diet passed the budget bill on July 25 and control plan also deliberated. However, on August 9, all progress suspended. The ostensible reason to interrupt the independence of the tax agency is that a newly appointed inspector general executed administration arrangement forcibly on the ground of an austerity plan of the new Japanese cabinet. The actual reason derives from the innate conflict of the Japanese colonial ruling: a collision between the policy to levy huge tax on the propertied class and the principle of divide and rule. This innate conflict(1923~1924) continued to influence the tax system review(1926~1927) and resulted in waving induction of the general income tax. Followed by this trend, the mass exploitative tax system based on indirect tax rooted in the colonial Chosun.

수권규정에 관한 법해석과 법외노조 통보제도의 적법성 - 대법원 2020. 9. 3. 선고 2016두32992 전원합의체 판결 -

곽신재 한국법학원 2021 저스티스 Vol.- No.184

2013년 10월에 시작된 전국교직원노동조합 법외노조 통보 사건이 7년의 심리 끝에 대법원의 전원합의체 판결 선고로 마무리되었다. 대상판결의 다수의견은 현행 법외노조 통보 제도가 가진 수권근거의 결여, 즉 ‘법률의 공백’을 지적하는 지점에서 판단을 그쳤고, 각 별개의견과 반대의견은 이러한 다수의견이 판단이 ‘문제의 본질을 회피하는 편의주의적 판단’에 해당한다고 비판하였다. 이러한 견해 대립은 표면적으로 법외노조 통보 제도의 수권규정에 관한 서로 다른 해석론의 대립이나, 그 근저에는 행정법 영역에서 법원이 부담하여야 하는 역할이라는 보다 큰 쟁점이 놓여 있다. 행정법의 핵심적인 특질은 그 규율 대상인 행정이 수범자인 동시에 1차적 법해석자의 지위에 있다는 점이다. 수권규정에 관한 법해석과 실체적 요건에 관한 법해석의 구분은 이러한 특질의 연장선상에 있는 쟁점으로서, 행정관청에 대한 사법 존중의 범위, 행정에 대한 법치주의적 통제 방식, 나아가 삼권(三權)의 바람직한 분립과 견제 등의 질문과 연결되어 있다. 실체적 요건 규정의 경우 전문성을 가진 행정관청의 법해석을 충분히 존중할 필요가 있는 반면, 행정관청의 권한 범위를 설정하는 ‘수권규정’의 영역에서만큼은 입법부와 사법부가 보다 적극적으로 행정부를 감시‧통제할 필요가 있다. 특히 법원은 수권규정과 실체적 요건 사이의 구별을 염두에 두고, 행정관청이 입법부의 의사에 반하여 자신의 권한을 확장하는 방향으로 수권규정을 해석하고 있지는 않은지, 행정관청의 권한을 확장하는 법해석이 국민의 기본권을 제한할 가능성은 없는지, 나아가 법원에 의한 섣부른 법형성이 입법부의 제도 형성권을 침해할 가능성은 없는지 주의할 필요가 있다. 대상판결에서 각 별개의견과 반대의견은 흠결된 수권규정을 보충하는 법리인 ‘묵시적 위임 법리’와 ‘수익적 처분의 직권철회 법리’를 근거로 법외노조 통보 제도의 법적 근거를 인정하는 법해석을 수행하였다. 그러나 수권규정에 관한 법해석이 지닌 특징과 노동자의 단결권을 보호하는 헌법 원리 및 법령 개정 과정에서 드러나는 입법자의 의사를 고려할 때, 당해 사안에서 법원이 법해석을 통하여 흠결된 수권근거를 보충하는 것은 타당하다고 보기 어렵다. 대상판결은 법외노조 통보 제도의 수권근거를 인정하지 아니함으로써 입법기관 및 행정관청에게 ‘노동조합 사후심사제도’를 새롭게 형성할 책무를 지웠다는 점에서 그 의의가 있다. In September 2020, the Korean Supreme Court issued an en banc decision that revoked the disposition notifying non-legalization of the Korean Teachers and Education workers Union. The majority opinion of the case indicated that because of the lack of legislative delegation to notify non-legalization of trade union, Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is null and void. Not giving any further interpretation of the rule which defines substantial requirements of ‘legal’ trade union, the major opinion is criticized by two concurring opinions and the dissenting opinion that it put aside the essential issue of the problem by focusing on the minor issue, such as the legal basis of delegation. However, the interpretation of delegation rules is one of the most important issue in administrative law. It leads to significant questions about parliamentary reservation, separation of powers, judicial deference toward agency decisions, and the desirable regime of control over administrative power. As a member of trias politica, administrative agencies are not only regulatees of administrative law, but also initial interpreters of the rules. The courts might give some deference to agency interpretation of ‘requirement rules’, which frequently contains technical consideration and expert knowledge. However, in case of delegation rules, the courts should thoroughly examine whether administrative agencies enlarge their authority by arbitrary interpretation, putting the people’s fundamental rights in danger. Moreover, the courts should give deference to the National Assembly, which can hold public discussion about conflicting interests and fundamental matters with regard to people’s rights. As the authority for institutional formation is reserved to the legislature, the courts should be careful not to trespass the boundary of legislative power. In this case, each concurring opinions and the dissenting opinion has adapted judicial precedent of ‘implied delegation’ and ‘agency’s authority of revocation’ in order to supplement legal delegation of the disposition. However, none of these doctrines seems sufficient to complement the statutory grounds of the disposition or the enforcement decree. Rather, in consideration of parliamentary reservation, a trade union’s rights of association which the Constitution typically protects from the administrative control, and the legislator’ intent which can be inferred from the legislative history of the Trade Union Act, the administrative agency should not be permitted to do such a formative disposition like notification of non-legalization of a trade union without any statutory grounds, nor should the courts complement delegation that does not exist in the law by interpretation. On this account, the major opinion is particularly meaningful in that it urges the National Assembly and the government to form a new desirable regulation for a registered trade union by public discussion and adjustment of conflicting social interests.

경찰기관의 정보공개 처분에 대한 검토 -중앙행정심판위원회 2023년 재결 사례 분석을 중심으로-

신관우 한국공안행정학회 2024 한국공안행정학회보 Vol.33 No.1

본 연구에서는 경찰통제의 수단인 정보공개와 행정심판 제도를 고찰하고 중앙행정심판위원회에서 2023년에 경찰기관 정보공개 처분을 대상으로 명백하게 위법·부당성을 인정한 인용재결의 실태를 살펴본 후, 경찰기관 정보공개 처분에 대하여 합리적인 제언을 하고자 하였다. 국민이 경찰기관에 정보공개 청구권을 행사하면, 경찰기관은 정보공개법에서 정한 법정 절차에 따라 정보공개 여부를 결정하여 처분하여야 한다. 정보공개 청구인은 경찰기관의 정보공개 처분에 대하여 중앙행정심판위원회에 행정심판 청구를 통해 불복할 수 있다. 경찰기관 정보공개 처분의 인용재결을 검토하여 다음과 같은 실태를 확인할 수 있었다. 먼저, 경찰기관이 정보공개법에 따른 법정 절차를 준수하지 않거나 비공개 사유의 적용을 오판한 사례가 있었다. 또한 경찰기관 정보공개 담당자의 정보공개법에 대한 기본 지식 부족으로 처분사유를 추가·변경하거나, 형식적 적법성을 갖춘 실질적 거부처분을 통해 정보공개 청구인의 이의신청권을 제한하는 경우도 있었다. 앞서 살펴본 경찰기관 정보공개 처분에 대한 인용재결 검토를 통해 도출되는 제언은 아래와 같이 정리할 수 있다. 첫째, 정보공개 절차를 준수하지 않는 담당자에 대한 징계 책임 강화, 둘째, 위법·부당한 정보공개 처분 사례에 대하여 정기적인 교육 및 평가, 셋째, 경찰기관 고유 사무인 수사, 교통, 생활안전 분야 근무자에 대한 정보공개 교육 이수제 도입, 넷째, 감독청의 감독 기능 강화, 다섯째, 위법·부당한 재결 사례를 공개할 필요가 있다. In this study, examine information disclosure and the administrative judgment system, which are means of police control, and examine the current status of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission's citation decision that clearly recognized the illegality and unfairness of the disposition of information disclosure by police agencies in 2023. In addition, it was intended to provide suggestions for reasonable disposition of information disclosure by police agencies. When a citizen exercises the right to request information disclosure from a police agency, the police agency decides whether or not to disclose the information in accordance with the statutory procedures set forth in the Information Disclosure Act. A person requesting information disclosure may appeal a police agency's decision to disclose information by filing an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. After reviewing the decision to disclose information to police agencies, be able to confirm the following facts. First, police agencies identified cases where they did not comply with statutory procedures under the Information Disclosure Act or misjudged the application of reasons for non-disclosure. In addition, we were able to confirm cases where police agencies' information disclosure officers lacked basic knowledge of the Information Disclosure Act, adding or changing the reasons for disposition, or restricting the information disclosure claimant's right to object through a substantive refusal with formal legality. The suggestions derived from the review of citation decisions regarding information disclosure by police agencies as discussed above can be summarized as follows. There is a need to do about the First, strengthening disciplinary responsibility for those in charge who do not comply with information disclosure procedures, Second, regular education and evaluation on cases of illegal and unfair information disclosure, Third, the introduction of a training completion system for police agency-specific office workers in the fields of investigation, transportation, and life safety, Fourth, strengthening the supervisory function of the Supervisory Office, Fifth, disclosure of cases of illegal and unfair decisions

수사기관 및 사인에 의해 촬영된 CCTV 촬영물과 영장주의

최호진,김현조 한국형사소송법학회 2017 형사소송 이론과 실무 Vol.9 No.2

We have examined the collection and preservation of CCTV footage as evidence in the investigation process from the perspective of warranties. If an investigative agency takes arbitrarily a photograph of a private space as a investigation, it has a similar nature to the verification, so it should be done only by a verification warrant issued by a judge. It is necessary to figure out whether the investigation is compulsory investigation or not, in case of conducting in open area to the public. It‘s not meaning of abandonment of a right to dispose of image information even in an open place, and it is not considered as a consent for Photo-shooting. Even if it is an open place, it is reasonable to assume that the photographs taken against the person’s will are considered to be a compulsory investigation. Therefore, if the investigation agency shoots it, the CCTV-Recording will be possible by the preliminary warrant issued by the judge, and in an urgent case it will be demanded post-warrant. The preservation of CCTV footage set up and operated by a public agency or a normal person needs to be interpreted according to Personal Information Protection Act. In the case of CCTV installed and operated by a public agency, CCTV footage can be submitted to an investigation agency based on Article 18 (7) of the same Act. However, there is no regulation on whether a photograph can be submitted to an investigation agency when a normal person is it installed and operated. In order to be lawful for the seizure of arbitrary submissions, the arbitrary nature of submissions must be recognized, as well as the authority to submit them to submitters. Considered whether a CCTV installer or operator has the authority to submit photographs or not, as a purpose of Article 17 of the Personal Information Protection Act, the article should be not a general rule about this authority. Personal Information Protection Act regulates the procedures and methods of providing personal information to third parties including the investigation agency. To sustain a public prosecution and investigate crimes, if criminal investigation requests to submit data containing personal information, it is only possible by a court order. It can not be seen as an arbitrary investigation, and arbitrary submissions can not be seized. 수사절차에서 CCTV 촬영물을 증거로 수집・보전하는 것에 대하여 영장주의와의 관점에서 살펴본다. 수사기관이 수사의 방법으로 대상자의 사적 공간을 촬영을 하는 경우에는 검증과 유사한 성격을 가지므로 법관이 발부한 검증영장에 의하여만 가능하다. 수사기관이 공개된 장소에서 촬영한 경우 임의수사인지 강제수사인지를 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 공개된 장소라도 정보주체가 영상정보에 대한 처분권을 포기했다고 보기 어렵고, 촬영에 대한 동의가 있다고 간주할 수도 없다. 공개된 장소라고 하더라도 정보주체의 의사에 반하여 이루어지는 촬영은 강제수사에 해당한다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 따라서 수사기관이 촬영할 경우에는 법관이 발부한 사전 검증영장에 의해서 가능할 것이며, 긴급성 등이 인정되어 영장 없이 검증을 한 경우에는 사후영장을 청구하여야 할 것이다. 수사기관이 아닌 공공기관이나 사인이 설치・운영하는 CCTV 촬영물을 수집・보전하는 것에 대해서는 개인정보보호법의 취지에 따라 해석될 필요가 있다. 공공기관이 설치・운영하는 CCTV의 경우 개인정보보호법 제18조 제7호에 근거하여 CCTV 촬영물을 수사기관에 제출할 수 있다. 하지만 사인이 설치・운영하는 경우에는 수사기관에 촬영물을 제출할 수 있는지에 대한 관련규정은 마련되어 있지 않다. 임의제출물의 압수가 적법하기 위해서는 제출의 임의성이 인정될 뿐만 아니라 제출자들에게 제출할 권한이 있어야 한다. CCTV 설치・운영자에게 촬영물 제출권한이 있는지에 대하여 개인정보보호법 제17조의 취지를 살펴보면 사인이 수사기관에 촬영물을 제출할 수 있는 상황은 극히 제한적인 경우이므로 이 규정을 제출권한에 대한 일반적 규정이라고 볼 수 없다. 개인정보보호법은 개인정보를 수사기관을 포함한 제3자에게 제공하는 경우에 필요한 절차와 방법을 별도로 정하고 있다. 따라서 범죄수사와 공소제기 유지를 위해 수사기관 등에서 개인정보가 포함된 자료제출을 요구하는 경우 법관의 영장이나 법원의 제출명령이 있는 경우에만 가능하다. 이를 임의수사로 볼 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 임의제출물의 압수를 할 수 없다.