초록 close

경찰의 개념은 공공의 안녕과 질서유지로 정의되고 있다. 이러한 경찰의 개념은 경찰력의 작용근거가 되고 있으며, 현대 경찰행정에서 공공성은 대륙법계의 법통을 계승하여 과거의 소극적인 목적에 한정하여 왔다. 그러하던 것이 복리행정의 증가와 미국 경찰제도의 도입 등에 따라 우리 경찰행정은 과거의 소극적인 목적에 한정되어서는 경찰목적을 달성하기 어려운 상황이다. 복리행정과 치안수요의 증가는 경찰력이 더 이상 소극적인 목적에 한정될 수 없는 한계점을 가지게 되었다. 경찰력은 권력적인 작용으로 법률에 근거가 있어야 하며, 모든 행위들에 대하여 법률에서 근거하는 것은 사실상 불가능하다. 따라서 경찰력이 발동될 수 있는 근거가 공공의 안녕과 질서유지라는 공공성이다. 공공성의 침해에 대하여 경찰력이 발동될 수 있는데, 이러한 공공성의 개념을 어디까지 정의하여야 하는가에 대하여 견해가 나뉘고 있다. 특히 공공의 안녕과 질서유지를 엄격히 구분하여야 하는가와 또한, 공공의 범위를 어디까지 하여야 하는가가 논란의 중심에 있다. 현대 행정법학자들은 공공의 안녕과 질서유지를 구분하는 경향을 주로 보이고 있다. 그러나 경찰법집행기관은 공공의 안녕과 질서유지를 구분하지 않고 있으며, 대법원 또한 이를 구별하여 정의하고 있지 않다. 경찰행정의 확대와 치안수요의 증가는 공공의 안녕과 질서유지를 구별하여서는 직접적인 경찰력 발동이 어려울 수 있다. 따라서 현대 경찰행정에서 성문법규와 불문법규의 구분을 명확히 하는 것은 매우 어려우므로 이를 구별할 실익이 없다고 볼 수 있다. 또한 공공성의 범위를 개인적 법익과 국가공동체의 법익에 한정하여서는 치안수요에 부응할 수 없어 공공성의 범위를 확대하여야 헌법상 요구되는 민주주의, 지방자치에 부응할 수 있다.


Kim, Won Jung The police is defined in keeping public safety and social order-keeping. It is the ground of the enforcement of the police force. The publicity of modern police administration succeeds the tradition of continental law, so it has been limited on the inactive purpose of the past. Then, with the increase in well-fare administration and the introduction of American police system, Korean police administration faces a difficult situation in which it has not been able to achieve the purpose of the police with the past idle aim. The well-fare administration and the rise in demands of policing made the police force be faced with its limitive point. In fact, it is impossible that the police force should have legal grounds as an authoritative operation and its enforcements should be based on the legislation. Thus, the foundation of the police force is the public safety of public well-fare and order-keeping. It could take place when the publicity is infringed, but there are disagreed opinions about the definition of 'Publicity'. Particularly, the hottest issue is the category of 'Publicity' and whether public well-fare and order-keeping should be distinguished strictly. Modern administrative jurists tend to separate public safety from order-keeping, whereas the executive office of police law are not. Furthermore, the Supreme Court dose not define those by making distinction. Enforcing of direct police force could be not easy when public safety and order-keeping are clearly divided each other in the situation where it is necessary to extend police administration and to cope with increased demands for policing. Therefore, making distinction the two things is ineffective, because it is very tough to separate written legislations from conventional ones. Also, confining the category of 'Publicity' on personal legal advantages and ones of the national community couldn't be accorded with policing demands, thus only the extension in the category of 'Publicity' is able to do with democracy and local autonomy that are needed on the constitution.


Kim, Won Jung The police is defined in keeping public safety and social order-keeping. It is the ground of the enforcement of the police force. The publicity of modern police administration succeeds the tradition of continental law, so it has been limited on the inactive purpose of the past. Then, with the increase in well-fare administration and the introduction of American police system, Korean police administration faces a difficult situation in which it has not been able to achieve the purpose of the police with the past idle aim. The well-fare administration and the rise in demands of policing made the police force be faced with its limitive point. In fact, it is impossible that the police force should have legal grounds as an authoritative operation and its enforcements should be based on the legislation. Thus, the foundation of the police force is the public safety of public well-fare and order-keeping. It could take place when the publicity is infringed, but there are disagreed opinions about the definition of 'Publicity'. Particularly, the hottest issue is the category of 'Publicity' and whether public well-fare and order-keeping should be distinguished strictly. Modern administrative jurists tend to separate public safety from order-keeping, whereas the executive office of police law are not. Furthermore, the Supreme Court dose not define those by making distinction. Enforcing of direct police force could be not easy when public safety and order-keeping are clearly divided each other in the situation where it is necessary to extend police administration and to cope with increased demands for policing. Therefore, making distinction the two things is ineffective, because it is very tough to separate written legislations from conventional ones. Also, confining the category of 'Publicity' on personal legal advantages and ones of the national community couldn't be accorded with policing demands, thus only the extension in the category of 'Publicity' is able to do with democracy and local autonomy that are needed on the constitution.