수사지휘에 관한 공법적 체계화

This study aims to focus on the command of investigations, which was exercised practically and experientially in the reality of Public Law, explains and systemizes it based on the theory of Public Law. The study raises a need to review the systematization of the command of investigations in the area of Public Law as the command and supervision right in part of the organizational norms that were discussed in the area of the Administrative Organization Act and belonged to the particulars of the investigation area. It would promote the just positioning of the systematic status of discussions about the command of investigations and grant an academic cause to researchers. The study reviewed laws and cases about the major issues in the command of investigations based on Public Law and established a rational interpretive theory, whose specific content is as follows: 1) The command of investigations related to the command requirements is a mandatory authority. A lower-rank agency has its independent authority of command recognized based on its original right to command, and an upper-rank agency will claim superior force over the command of investigation in terms of content. 2) There are no explicit formative or restrictive regulations about the objects and content of command, which should be considered as an intention of legislators. There is no uniform regulation for the methods, timing, means, and procedures of investigations due to their atypical nature. The effect scope of the command of investigation is related to the scope of binding power. The subjects and content are mutually close in relations to the command of investigations. The content of command includes investigative administration work under indirect investigation work as well as direct investigation work. 3) In principle, there are no limitations to the forms, methods, places, and timing of the command of investigations if there are separate regulations about the procedures of command. There are some exceptions in which the command of investigations is forced in written form. 4) When the command of investigations is exercised in relation to the effect of command, its effect can spread to the successor of each party despite changes to the subjects and objects of command. Since the command of investigations has formative effects, it comes into effect from the moment that the command of investigations reaches an object of command. The command of investigations is an individual action, thus requiring no permission from an object of command. There are no explicit regulations about the rank of effect among different commands of investigations, which calls for a legislative solution. 5) There is no procedure to receive a judicial judgment other than a formal objection when following the current law about the command of investigation in relation to an objection. 6) When there is an objection raised by an object of command regarding the command of investigation over the right to succeed and transfer a job in a special case, the commander should make a judgment separately according to whether there are separate written regulations about the replacement of the person in charge. The conclusion pointed out the limitations of the study and made proposals for a follow-up study.