검사독점적 영장신청제도에 대한 비판적 고찰 및 입법론적 개선방안 = A Critical Study on the Warrant Request System

국문 초록 (Abstract)

영장주의의 본질은 수사상 강제처분의 허용여부에 대한 법관의 판단을 원칙적으로 사전에 그리고 필요적으로 요구하는 것이므로, 수사상 강제처분의 당사자인 검사에게 신청권을 독점시키는 것은 영장주의의 본질이라 보기 어려울 것이다. 그러나 우리 헌법과 형사소송법은 영장신청권자를 검사로 한정함으로써 영장주의의 본질을 흐릴 뿐 아니라 형사사법절차상 권한의 적정한 배분과 합리적 운용에 지장을 초래하고 있다.
이 논문은 위와 같이 영장신청의 주체를 검사에 한정하고 있는 헌법 및 형사소송법의 태도가 타당하고 정당한지, 즉 검사독점적 영장신청제도가 존속되어야 하는지, 개선되어야 하는지에 대해 법률적 관점에서 재조명해 보고자 하였다.
법제사적으로 검사독점적 영장신청제도는 1948년 미군정법령 제180호에 처음으로 규정되었으나, 제정형사소송법에는 반영되지 않았다. 이후 1961년 형사소송법 개정 및 1962년 헌법 개정 시 검사경유원칙이 법률과 헌법에 반영되었는데, 이에 대해 경찰의 인권유린을 막기 위한 대책이었다는 평가도 있으나, 제도 도입 전후의 상황을 종합하여 볼 때, 제20대 국회 헌법개정특별위원회 다수의견과 같이 국민의 기본권 보장과는 관련이 없다고 보는 것이 합리적일 것이다. 더욱이, 불구속재판의 원칙이 확립된 오늘날에는 동 제도의 법적 타당성에 대해 시대적 상황에 맞게 재검토해 볼 여지가 있다고 할 것이다.
비교법적으로 멕시코를 제외하면, 헌법에 영장청구권자를 명시한 입법례는 존재하지 않고, 멕시코가 OECD 국가라고는 하나, 선진외국의 모범 입법례라기보다는 과거 독재정권에 의한 인권침해 경험을 헌법에 반영한 정도로 받아들여야 할 것이다. 법률상으로도 검사가 영장신청권을 독점한 입법례는 독일 외에 존재하지 않는다. 독일은 검사와 사법경찰 간에 대등·협력 관계가 정립되어 있는 만큼, 우리나라와의 직접적인 비교는 어렵다고 보아야 할 것이다. 즉, 우리 헌법·형사소송법 제·개정에 영향을 미친 나라 가운데 영장신청권의 검사독점을 뒷받침하는 입법례는 존재하지 않는다고 보아도 무리가 아닐 것이다.
결국 검사독점적 영장신청제도는 법적 타당성 및 정당성이 부족한 제도이므로, 개선방안이 모색되어야 한다. 다만, 우리 헌법은 경성헌법인 데다, 2018. 5. 24. 대통령 개헌안이 폐기되어 개헌이 현실적으로 불가능한 상황인 만큼, 현행헌법을 전제로 형사소송법 개정에 대한 검토가 이루어져야 할 것이다.
검사의 영장신청권은 영장주의의 본질과 관련이 없고 헌법사항도 아니기 때문에 형사소송법에 검사의 영장신청권의 의미를 법관의 영장심사권에 준하는 내용심사권이 아니라, 형식심사권으로 한정하더라도 헌법에 위반된다고 볼 수 없을 것인바, 경찰 신청 영장에 대해 검사는 적법성 여부에 대해 형식적으로 심사하여 법원에 영장을 청구하도록 형사소송법을 개정한다면 ‘절차의 신속화와 단순화’를 통해 ‘인권보장’에 기여할 뿐만 아니라, 경찰과 검찰 간의 ‘견제와 균형’을 통해 ‘실체적 진실 발견’에 기여할 수 있을 것이다.
다만, 법안 통과 가능성 등 현실적 여건을 감안하여, 우선 대물영장에 검사의 형식심사를 도입함으로써 증거 수집을 위한 경찰의 압수수색 권한만큼은 실질적으로 보장하는 것을 ‘한시적·대안적’ 차선책으로 고려해봄직한데, 이 경우 반드시 검사의 대인영장 불청구에 대한 경찰의 불복절차를 마련하여 검사의 영장 심사권을 견제하는 방안이 병행되어야 할 것이다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제 1 장 서론 ······························· 1
• 제 1 절 연구의 배경 및 목적 ································ 1
• 제 2 절 연구의 범위 및 방법 ································ 5
• 제 2 장 검사독점적 영장신청제도의 법제사적 고찰 ···················· 8
• 제 1 절 검사독점적 영장신청제도의 도입연혁 ············ 8
• Ⅰ. 형사소송법·헌법 제정 이전의 영장신청제도 ············ 8
• Ⅱ. 형사소송법상 검사독점적 영장신청제도의 도입연혁 ·· 14
• Ⅲ. 헌법상 검사독점적 영장신청제도의 도입연혁 ·········· 20
• 제 2 절 검사독점적 영장신청제도의 사후평가 ··········· 24
• Ⅰ. 검사독점적 영장신청제도에 대한 상반된 평가 ········ 24
• Ⅱ. 영장주의의 본질 ··········································· 27
• 1. 영장주의의 의의 ··········································· 27
• 2. 영장주의의 기원 ··········································· 29
• 3. 제헌헌법상의 영장주의 ··································· 32
• 4. 현행헌법상의 영장주의 ··································· 33
• 5. 소결 ························································· 40
• 제 3 절 시사점 ··············································· 41
• 제 3 장 검사독점적 영장신청제도의 비교법적 고찰 ··················· 46
• 제 1 절 영미법계 국가의 영장신청제도 ·················· 46
• Ⅰ. 미국 ························································ 46
• 1. 영장신청권자에 대한 규정 ······························· 46
• 2. 수사권과의 관계 ··········································· 47
• Ⅱ. 영국 ························································· 49
• 1. 영장신청권자에 대한 규정 ······························· 49
• 2. 수사권과의 관계 ··········································· 51
• 제 2 절 대륙법계 국가의 영장신청제도 ·················· 54
• Ⅰ. 독일 ························································· 54
• 1. 영장신청권자에 대한 규정 ······························· 54
• 2. 수사권과의 관계 ··········································· 55
• Ⅱ. 프랑스 ······················································ 57
• 1. 영장신청권자에 대한 규정 ······························· 57
• 2. 수사권과의 관계 ··········································· 58
• Ⅲ. 기타 국가 ··················································· 60
• 1. 일본 ························································· 60
• 2. 스위스 ······················································· 65
• 3. 이탈리아 ···················································· 66
• 4. 스페인 ······················································ 67
• 5. 그리스 ······················································ 68
• 6. 멕시코 ······················································ 69
• 제 3 절 시사점 ··············································· 69
• Ⅰ. 영미법계 ···················································· 69
• Ⅱ. 대륙법계 ···················································· 70
• Ⅲ. 소결 ························································· 73
• 제 4 장 검사독점적 영장신청제도의 개선방안 ························· 76
• 제 1 절 서설 ·················································· 76
• 제 2 절 제20대 국회 수사구조개혁 관련 형사소송법 개정안 ················································ 77
• Ⅰ. 현황 ························································ 77
• Ⅱ. 세부내용 ··················································· 79
• 1. 금태섭 의원 대표발의 법안 ····························· 79
• 2. 백혜련 의원 대표발의 법안 ····························· 81
• 3. 표창원 의원 대표발의 법안 ····························· 84
• 4. 김석기 의원 대표발의 법안 ····························· 88
• Ⅲ. 소결 ························································ 93
• 제 3 절 형사소송법 개정방안: 검사의 권한을 형식심사로 제한 ··················································· 96
• Ⅰ. 영장 심사권의 의미 ······································· 96
• 1. 법관의 영장 심사권의 의미 ······························ 96
• 2. 검사의 영장 신청권의 의미 ······························ 97
• Ⅱ. 검사의 영장심사권이 형식심사권임을 형사소송법에 명시 ······························································· 100
• 1. 의의 ························································· 100
• 2. <제1안> 대인영장과 대물영장 구별 없이 형식심사로 제한 ························································· 101
• 3. <제2안> 대물영장에 한해 형식심사, 추후 대인영장으로 확대 ·························································· 104
• 제 5 장 결론 ····························· 115
• 참고문헌 ································· 120
• Abstract ·································128