법무부장관 등과 국회 간의 권한쟁의에 관한 헌법재판소 결정 검토

Recently, a partial revision bill to the Prosecutor's Office Act and a partial revision bill to the Criminal Procedure Act were passed in the National Assembly. The revised bill includes provisions that limit the investigative power of prosecutors, such as reducing the scope of crimes that prosecutors can initiate investigations to include corruption crimes and economic crimes. Accordingly, the Minister of Justice and six prosecutors argued that the National Assembly's act of revising the Prosecutors' Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act infringes on the prosecutors' investigative and prosecution rights granted by the Constitution and laws and the Minister of Justice's administrative authority regarding prosecutors, and filed the Adjudication on Competence Dispute. In this case, the Constitutional Court recognized the prosecutor's capacity as a party, and because the law revision act was intended to adjust and limit the prosecutor's authority to investigate and file indictments, the prosecutor could request a Adjudication on Competence Dispute regarding the law revision act. It is considered to have appropriate relevance. On the other hand, the Minister of Justice, who does not directly exercise investigative and prosecution rights, does not recognize the appropriate relevance of requesting a Adjudication on Competence Dispute regarding law revision acts. In this case, the Constitutional Court reviews the possibility of infringement of authority, focusing on the relationship between the ‘cause of infringement’ and ‘object of infringement’. The Constitutional Court ruled that the 'constitutional authority' of state agencies directly granted by the Constitution may be infringed upon by the acts or omissions of various state agencies, such as the legislative acts of the National Assembly, but the 'statutory authority' of state agencies is limited to the legislative acts of the National Assembly. It is said that it cannot be violated. The Constitutional Court ruled that the 'legal authority' of state agencies cannot be infringed upon by legislative acts of the National Assembly because the act of law revision that causes infringement is a decision on legislative matters for which the National Assembly's discretion in adjusting and distributing investigative powers is recognized. There are parts where it is difficult to agree on the reasons for the decision. Rather than formally determining that there is no possibility of infringement of the claimant's legal rights by the National Assembly's law revision act, the law revision act that caused the infringement during the review process of the Constitutional Court violated the claimant's legal rights from a procedural and substantive perspective. It is necessary to determine whether there is no possibility of doing so. If the Constitutional Court had actively judged the possibility of infringement of the petitioner's authority in terms of legal requirements, it is believed that there would have been room for this case to proceed to a judgment on whether the National Assembly's decision-making process was in conflict with constitutional provisions or constitutional principles and principles.