공수처법 제24조 제1항의 의미- 헌법재판소 2021. 1. 28. 2020헌마264·2020헌마681(병합) 결정(전원재판부) -

This article is a commentary on the Constitutional Court’s 2020Hun-Ma264·2020Hun-Ma681(Joined) Decision, on January 28, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Decision’). We focused on the opinions regarding Article 24, Section (1) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (hereinafter ‘CIO Act’), especially the legal opinion and dissenting opinions. We criticized the unfairness of the dissenting opinions from the standpoint of supporting the court's legal opinion. The dissenting opinion argued that the prosecution authority was not subject to the checks and balances of internal government organizations. The argument mainly relies on previous experience with a single prosecution system, in which prosecutors in the Prosecutor's Office held exclusive prosecution authority. This kind of thinking makes it hard to understand the fact that the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (hereinafter ‘CIO’) enjoys the prosecution authority that had been monopolized by the prosecutors of the Prosecutors' Office. And this is not an attitude respectful to the legislative, and the principle of “checks-and-balances” of the Constitution. Moreover, the Due Process of Law demands the process of the transfer of the jurisdiction for maintaining the multiple prosecution system and Article 24, Section (1) of the CIO Act was provided as an essential instrument for this purpose.