수사기관의 수사종결 형태에 따른 불복방법에 관한 비교법적 연구 : 독일, 영국, 러시아, 일본 법·제도를 중심으로

This study aims to comparatively examine how procedural oversight and the protection of affected persons’ rights are institutionalized within criminal justice systems, with a particular focus on the objection procedures available against decisions to terminate investigations. As the forms of case termination in Korea have diversified—especially with the police’s authority to close cases without prosecutorial referral—there is a growing need to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of mechanisms that can ensure the substantive protection of affected individuals. Adopting a functionalist approach, this study analyzes systems in Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Japan, focusing not on formal structural differences, but on whether core functions—such as post-investigation oversight and the protection of affected parties—are being fulfilled. Key evaluative criteria include the independence, effectiveness, accessibility, and remedial capacity of each system’s objection procedures. Findings reveal that while formal avenues for challenging case terminations exist in most jurisdictions, their functional effectiveness varies. Judicial review ensures procedural legitimacy but is often limited by high barriers to access and low success rates. Internal review mechanisms offer easier access but fall short in independence and transparency. Citizen participation systems may enhance procedural legitimacy, yet require institutional reinforcement to achieve substantive impact. To function as an effective safeguard, objection procedures must be designed to ensure consistency, fairness, and meaningful participation. Internal review must be conducted independently from the investigative body, while external oversight should enable affected individuals to engage substantively without redundant procedural layers. Ultimately, objection mechanisms serve as essential tools for checking arbitrary decisions and upholding fairness and accountability in criminal justice. Continuous institutional reform is needed to maintain balance and effectiveness amid Korea’s evolving investigative structure.