검찰개혁을 위한 ‘수사-기소 분리’의 의미와 한계 - ‘분리(分離)’인가, ‘단락(短絡)’인가 -

The agenda of the recent prosecution reform centered on the so-called 'Prosecution Reform Four Act' is the 'separation of investigation-prosecution'. The term 'separation' here means that the 'right to investigate', which has been included in the power of the prosecution along with the right to prosecute, is independent (separated/detached) from the organization called the prosecution as well as from the right to prosecute. In addition, the separation plan proposed by the Prosecution Reform Act is to abolish the prosecution office first and establish a new agency dedicated to this by separating the prosecution's representative power, the prosecution's right to prosecute and investigate. In other words, the core of the prosecution's reform is to establish a "public prosecution office" in charge of prosecution and a "serious crime investigation office" specialized in serious crime investigations. However, the limitation of this prosecution reform is that "systematic separation" is leading to a "functional short circuit." In other words, the limitation of this prosecution reform and the fact that investigations and prosecutions, which should be organically linked at the functional level, have been "shortened" at all beyond "separation" is a major factor that darkens the performance and prospects after the reform. In order for the ongoing prosecution reform not to become the déjà-vu of the last reform, reflection or reflection on what has been tried to reform through prosecution reform in the past, what has been done, and what has been the result should be the starting point. And on the premise of this, it is necessary to determine what to do for the "Re-" reform. Presumably, the four prosecution reform laws chose to build high barriers for "complete separation of investigation-prosecution" rather than piers in the lost valley between the prosecution and the police. f the reform is realized, the right to investigate and prosecute will be isolated from each other with this barrier in between. This isolation could have great implications for any organization/organization for securing independence and autonomy from interference. However, if the results and benefits of the prosecution reform are only that, it is necessary to ask again whether the reform is valid and justified. And at this time, the criterion for validity and legitimacy should not be the 'interest of an institution', but the 'interest of the people'.