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.

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.

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.

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

김혜경 한국형사법학회 2020 형사법연구 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

수사와 내사의 구별 필요성에 관한 검토

成允煥(Youn Hwan Seong) 중앙법학회 2013 中央法學 Vol.15 No.1

Preliminary investigation is not any more a professional jargon among Korean citizens. Both investigation entity and ordinary citizens differentiate this word from formal investigation and understand it as “investigatory activities to verify the crime information prior to initiating formal investigation made by enforcement entity. However, the word “preliminary investigation” has still been strange to academic circle, and does not find its place even in the Criminal Procedure textbook. In addition, its nature and concept have not been fully established, either. It makes a great difference in its application whether to regard the preliminary investigation as part of investigation or as having different concept or nature. Consideration of it as part of formal investigation would be subject to the strict application of the investigation procedures in Criminal Procedure Law. Currently, preliminary investigation appears to deviate completely from the scope of Criminal Procedure Law. The current practice appears that the investigation entity does not recognize the investigatee`s fundamental defense rights on the grounds that he/she is not booked despite stringent questioning toward him/her. Another problem arises out of conflicts involving directional hierarchy between prosecutors and policemen. While the Criminal Procedure Law requires the policemen to respect investigatory direction of prosecutors, the policemen vigorously refuse to follow the investigatory direction of prosecutors and forward a case to the prosecutors for the reason that it is not an investigation step preceded by booking procedure. While the prosecutors have disrespected the various miranda rights of an investigatee by employing the different concept and nature from formal investigation, the policemen also have imitated the prosecutor`s practices and made every effort to escape from the control and direction of prosecutors. This Paper is intended to analyse the concept and nature of the preliminary investigation and suggest the solutions to this issue. All the disputes involving preliminary and formal investigation find its roots in differentiating the legal nature of them. The simple solutions to this dispute can be easily identified. The author`s solution is the application of common jurisprudence to both investigation by adopting the common legal nature in them. In this way, the investigatee also can entertain the same procedural defense rights which a suspect can be entitled to. Furthermore, if an accusor is qualified to apply for ``petition for adjudication`` or judicial review after internal closing decision, both an accusor and an investigatee can be better protected under Criminal Procedure Law than in different legal standards. For the sake of preventing the disadvantages resulting from the application of same status, the current preliminary investigation practices should be maintained, such as prohibition of investigatory questioning toward an investigatee prior to booking, restriction on fingerprinting and formulation of investigation records, etc.

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.-

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.

내사의 법적 근거와 입법론

조광훈 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2012 서울법학 Vol.20 No.2

Internal investigation is “a secret investigative activity by investigative agency before exercising the investigation-start right, in order to find out whether the person under internal investigation can be charged a criminal offense or not”. Like the concepts on the internal investigation are various, various legal bases of internal investigation had been suggested. Regarding the legal basis of internal investigation, there is an opinion that the legal basis should be found in Article 199 of Criminal Procedure Code. However, it is contradictory to see this article as the legal basis of internal investigation; because this article is the legal basis of the fact inquiry as one of the arbitrary investigation methods, after the investigation-start right of the investigative agency had been exercised. It is also difficult to see the opinion, which suggests finding the legal basis in Article 195 and Article 222 of Criminal Procedure Code, as the legal basis of internal investigation; because Article 195 is the substantive enactment of the prosecutor’s position as the leader in investigation and the investigation-start right of the prosecutor. The existing Prosecution Case Administration Regulation, Judicial Police Officer Work Regulation and the Crime Investigation Regulation cannot be the general legal bases of internal investigation; because they are internal administrative regulations of investigative agencies rather than the laws legislated by the National Assembly. The present legislation suggestion on internal investigation is also contradictory; because it finds the legal basis of internal investigation in Article 199 and Article 195 of Criminal Procedure Code, which regulates the time frame when the investigation-start right of investigative agency had been already exercised. The argument to “limit the allowance scope of internal investigation to information collection and questioning toward related persons or investigation on the accuser” also causes irrational result of mass-producing unnecessary ex-convicts; because there would be unnecessary criminal charges when the investigation-start right would be exercised at the timing when only the investigation on accusers/complainants had been done. The argument that “any disposition by legal force to start the investigation should not be allowed” is not based on the understanding on actual practice; because a limited disposition by legal force as the last step of internal investigation to confirm the criminal charge of a specific person under internal investigation is required in internal investigation practice. Therefore, it is recommended to regulate the internal investigation by “Criminal Procedure Code Article 195-2【Internal investigation of prosecutor】A prosecutor can perform the internal investigation to find whether a criminal offense can be charged or not. However, disposition by legal force on person(s) should not be done; while disposition by legal force on asset(s) can be done at minimum requirement”. 내사는 ‘수사기관이 피내사자의 범죄혐의 유·무를 알아보기 위하여 수사개시권을 행사하기 전에 펼치는 은밀한 조사활동’이다. 내사의 개념이 다양하듯이 내사의 법적근거도 다양하게 제시되고 있다. 내사의 법적근거와 관련하여 형사소송법 제199조에서 찾아야 한다는 견해는 제199조는 수사기관이 수사개시권을 행사한 이후의 임의수사의 한 방법으로 사실조회의 법적근거를 마련한 것이므로 내사의 법적근거로 보는 것은 모순이다. 형사소송법 제195조와 제222조에서 찾아야 한다는 견해도 제195조는 검사의 수사주재자임과 검사의 수사개시권을 명문으로 규정한 것이라는 점에서 내사의 법적근거로 보기는 어렵다. 또한 검찰사건사무규칙이나 기존의 사법경찰관리집무규칙, 범죄수사규칙 등도 국회에서 제정한 법률이 아니고 수사기관의 내부 행정적인 규칙에 불과하므로 내사의 일반적인 법적근거로 보기는 어렵다. 현재 우리나라에서 내사와 관련하여 제시된 입법론은 내사의 법적근거를 수사기관이 수사개시권을 발동한 이후를 규정하고 있는 형사소송법 제195조에서 찾으면서 제199조에 근거를 두려는 것 자체가 모순이다. 내사의 허용범위를 ‘정보의 확인과 관련자에 대한 정보수집 질문 또는 고발인 조사에 국한’시키자는 주장도 고소·고발인 조사만 한 상태에서 수사개시권을 발동하여야 하므로 불필요한 입건으로 불필요한 전과자를 양산시키는 불합리한 결과를 초래한다. 게다가 수사를 개시하기 위한 일체의 강제처분을 허용되지 않는다는 주장도 내사가 피내사자를 특정하여 피내사자에 대한 범죄혐의 유·무를 확인해 가는 절차로 내사의 마지막 단계에서 이를 확인하기 위한 제한적인 대물적 강제처분조차도 허용되지 않는다는 것은 실무를 이해하지 못하는 것이다. 따라서 내사를 ‘형사소송법 제195조 2【검사의 내사】검사는 범죄의 혐의 유·무를 확인하기 위해서는 내사할 수 있다. 단, 대인적 강제처분은 할 수 없고, 대물적 강제처분도 최소한도내에서 이루어져야 한다’고 규정하는 것이 바람직하다.

국세기본법과 관세법상 중복조사 금지에 관한 비교연구 - 대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2014두12062 판결 및 대법원 2020. 2. 13. 선고 2015두745 판결을 중심으로-

백혜영 대한변호사협회 2021 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.501

In principle, dual investigations should be prohibited because they seriously infringe on the freedom of business and legal stability of taxpayers, as well as lead to abuse of tax investigation rights. The Framework Act on National Taxes and the Customs Act explicitly set out regulations on the prohibition of dual investigations. Regarding the prohibition of dual investigations, issue such as ‘a method of determining the duplication of investigation to which the principle of prohibition of dual investigation is applied’ is usually raised. In this study, precedents related to the Framework Act on National Tax (Supreme Court 2014du12062 judgment, etc.) and customs law precedent judgments (Supreme Court 2015du745 judgment) were examined in turn on the issue. In particular, the 2015du745 decision of the Supreme Court is significant in that it is the first Supreme Court ruling on the prohibition of dual investigations under the Customs Act. There is a difference between the two laws in the above issue regarding the judgment of ‘duplication of investigation’. This is because there is a difference in wording, such as the Framework Act on National Taxes using ‘same item of taxes’ and ‘same taxable period’ as the criteria for determining redundancy, and the Customs Act using ‘the relevant case’ as the criterion. At this time, attention should be paid to the interpretation in that ‘the relevant case’, which is the standard for determining redundancy under the Customs Act, is an indeterminate concept open to interpretation. Judging from the meaning of the Taxpayer Protection Ordinance of the Korea Customs Service, the prohibited overlapping investigation means “re-investigation in the same field of customs and legality and the same period subject to investigation.” In the case of the Supreme Court’s 2015du745 rulings, the customs authorities chose a different method of determining the tax price in detail in each preceding and trailing investigation, but eventually conducted a “reexamination of the same customs clearance legal field.” Consequently, the conclusion of this judgment, which constitutes an illegal duplicate investigation, is reasonable in light of the above Korea Customs Service ordinance. In order to clarify the meaning of ‘the relevant case’, which is the standard for determining the overlap of investigations under the Customs Act, a legislative review was also conducted, such as whether the contents of the Korea Customs Service ordinance need to be reflected in the Customs Act. It is important for both taxpayers and tax authorities to familiarize themselves with the attitudes of case law regarding dual investigation. If the taxpayer determines that the investigation by the taxation authority falls under a “dual investigation” in light of the existing precedent attitude, the taxpayer can obtain relief by using the taxpayer protection system or by filing a lawsuit or a trial to cancel the imposition of the imposition. In addition, the tax authorities can judge whether the above taxpayer’s argument is valid by referring to the existing precedent attitudes. 중복조사는 납세자의 영업의 자유나 법적 안정성 등을 심각하게 침해할 뿐만 아니라 세무조사권의 남용으로 이어질 우려가 있으므로 원칙적으로 금지되어야 한다. 국세기본법, 관세법은 중복조사 금지에 관한 명시적 규정을 두고 있다. 본 연구에서는 조사의 ‘중복성’을 판단하는 방법에 관하여 판시하고 있는 국세기본법 관련 판례(대법원 2014두12062 판결 등)와 관세법 관련 판례(대법원 2015두745 판결)를 차례로 살펴보았다. 특히, 위 대법원 2015두745 판결의 경우에는 관세법상 금지되는 중복조사에 해당한다고 판단한 최초의 대법원 판결이라는 점에서 의미가 크다. 한편, ‘조사의 중복성’ 판단 기준에 있어서는 국세기본법과 관세법 사이에 차이가 있다. 국세기본법은 ‘같은 세목’과 ‘같은 과세기간’을 중복성 판단의 기준으로 삼고 있고, 관세법은 ‘해당 사안’을 그 기준으로 삼고 있는 등 문언상 차이가 있기 때문이다. 이때 관세법상 중복성 판단의 기준인 ‘해당 사안’은 해석의 여지가 있는 불확정개념이라는 점에서 그 해석에 유의해야 한다. 관세청 납세자보호 훈령을 통해 그 의미를 유추해보건대, 금지되는 중복조사란 ‘같은 통관적법성분야 및 같은 조사대상기간에 대한 재조사’를 의미한다. 위 대법원 2015두745 판결의 경우를 보면, 관세당국이 선행·후행 각 조사에서 세부적인 과세가격 결정방법을 달리 택하기는 하였으나, 결국 ‘과세가격에 관한 사항’을 조사하였다는 점에서 ‘같은 통관적법성분야에 대한 재조사’를 한 것으로 볼 수밖에 없는바, 위법한 중복조사에 해당한다고 본 대상판결의 결론은 위와 같은 관세청 훈령에 비추어 보더라도 타당하다. 한편, 관세법상 ‘해당 사안’의 의미를 명확히 한다는 차원에서 ‘관세청 납세자보호에 관한 훈령’ 및 ‘기업심사 운영에 관한 훈령’의 내용이 관세법령으로 상향 입법될 필요성은 없는지 등의 입법론적 검토도 함께 하였다. 중복조사에 관한 판례의 태도를 숙지하는 것은 납세자 및 과세당국 모두에게 중요하다. 납세자로서는 기존 판례 태도에 비추어 과세당국의 조사가 ‘중복조사’에 해당한다고 판단할 경우에 납세자보호관 제도를 이용하거나 부과처분 취소 심판 및 소송을 제기하는 등의 방법으로 구제받을 수 있고, 과세당국으로서는 그와 같은 납세자의 주장이 타당한지 판단함에 있어서 기존 판례의 태도를 참고할 수 있기 때문이다.

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.