중소기업의 경영혁신을 지원하는 일본의 최근 입법 동향

In June 2018, the government released an agreement to mediate investigative rights between prosecutors and police. The long-standing dispute over the adjustment of investigative rights stems from the purpose of prosecution reform. And the reform of prosecution should ultimately be aimed at defending and enhancing the interests of the people. In view of these two objectives, the agreement ended in a jumble, lost direction beyond its original purpose. This is because in the process of reaching an agreement, the political compromise and agreement between the prosecution and the police, or the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, came before the original purpose and the nature of the judicial process. From the perspective of the prosecution's reform, the agreement cannot be called a proper division of the prosecution's authority and a measure to prevent the use of biased authority. In addition, from the perspective of the interests of the people, it cannot be called a reform plan because the human rights infringement structure currently under investigation by the police and prosecutors is likely to remain intact or worse. This article examines the issue of agreement that abolishes the prosecution's right to command investigation and gives the police the right to end the investigation. After that points this article the problems of the current dual- and double-investigation structure, which the prosecution and police investigate separately and twice. As a way to overcome these problems, it proposes a reasonable investigation structure, in that the police are investigating and the prosecution directs the police investigation. In addition reviews this paper introducing a local police system and structural separating the judicial police from administrative police in order to prevent police concentration.