특별사법경찰관리의 단말기 조회를 통한 범죄경력자료 조회 적법성에 관한 비판적 소고- 개인정보자기결정권 침해 여부를 중심으로 -

초록

In accordance with 「Article 245-10 of the Criminal Procedure Act」, 「the Act on the Persons Who Will Perform Their Duties and Scope of Duties of Judicial Police Officers, and the Special Judicial Police Officers' Investigation Command and the Special Judicial Police Officers' Investigation Rules」, 「the Special Judicial Police Officers' Investigation Rules」, etc., the Special Judicial Police Officer has the authority to investigate. The legal nature of 'inquiry' is 'arbitrary administrative disposition', which has no legal obligation of the private sector to respond to the request for inquiry by the investigative agency. However, it is a mandatory act of acceptance for public institutions that have received requests for inquiry under the Criminal Act. Article 199 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 18 and 111 of the Special Judicial Police Officer's Investigation Command on Special Judicial Police Officers and the Rules of Investigation of Special Judicial Police Officers, Article 18 (2) 7 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 6 (1) 1 and 10 of the Act on the Effectiveness of Penalties, and Article 16 (7) of the Polnet Operation Rules are the basis for 'inquiry' on criminal background data of the Seoul Public Welfare Judicial Police Group (2017.5) also presupposes the use of inquiry terminals. If inquiry is possible through a terminal, both cases are permitted as it is deemed that the actual benefit of the distinction between direct or indirect inquiry is considered to be small or small. In deviating from the limit of the restriction of the right to self-determination of personal information in the act of 'terminal inquiry', the principle of clarity required by the Constitution is satisfied because the basis for delegation under the law is first clear. Next, if you look at the excessive prohibition, the purpose of the inquiry of the criminal record data through the inquiry terminal of the special judicial police official for the discovery of the substantive truth is recognized. The appropriateness of the means or method is also a sufficiently effective means to achieve legislative purposes. It is necessary to substantiate such things as reviewing the security of the National Intelligence Service in the establishment of a criminal investigation history inquiry system, establishing rules for introducing and operating a criminal investigation history inquiry system, regulations on security matters such as system installation location and access control, and supervision of unfair use outside the purpose. The balance of legal interests is also recognized as the public interest of discovering substantive truth is greater if the criminal history data is checked through the inquiry terminal.

키워드