지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This study investigated the current system of detention in detail. The revised systems of arrest and detention were to secure the person and to control illegal customary of the investigation authority.
However, it is still needed to improve in its content and operation as follow. The judges should interrogate the suspect before detention since a system of substantial examination for the issuance of warrant is not for the convenience of the issuance of warrant of courts, but is for the control of detention of suspect.
The code of criminal procedure indicates that substantial examination for the issuance of warrant by judge is tentative. Thus, the interrogation of suspect is an obligation for the judges before the issuance of warrant for safeguarding human rights of the suspect. The effects of warrants of detention must be within the inscribed criminal facts.
On the other hand, the supreme court regards that the warrant can be effective even if it is over the detention period. However, the warrant of detention is not effective any longer as the period is over in the point of the code of criminal procedure which gives the restriction of the detection period.
Thus, it is illegal detention if the period is over and the detention period of the suspect by the public prosecutor must be considered period of instituting public prosecution.
The double detention must be denied. It is a contradiction if it admits causes for detection to the suspect under detention. The detention on a separate charge is also illegal since the detention on a separate charge is against doctrine of warrant, and it permits the detention for the exaction of confession or the convenience of investigation.
However, it does not prohibit the investigation of other crimes of the suspect under detention even if the detention on a separate charge is illegal. Thus, the investigation of other crimes can be permitted only if it does not actually harm the judicial function of a court and the right in order to defense of suspect.
However, it is still needed to improve in its content and operation as follow. The judges should interrogate the suspect before detention since a system of substantial examination for the issuance of warrant is not for the convenience of the issuance of warrant of courts, but is for the control of detention of suspect.
The code of criminal procedure indicates that substantial examination for the issuance of warrant by judge is tentative. Thus, the interrogation of suspect is an obligation for the judges before the issuance of warrant for safeguarding human rights of the suspect. The effects of warrants of detention must be within the inscribed criminal facts.
On the other hand, the supreme court regards that the warrant can be effective even if it is over the detention period. However, the warrant of detention is not effective any longer as the period is over in the point of the code of criminal procedure which gives the restriction of the detection period.
Thus, it is illegal detention if the period is over and the detention period of the suspect by the public prosecutor must be considered period of instituting public prosecution.
The double detention must be denied. It is a contradiction if it admits causes for detection to the suspect under detention. The detention on a separate charge is also illegal since the detention on a separate charge is against doctrine of warrant, and it permits the detention for the exaction of confession or the convenience of investigation.
However, it does not prohibit the investigation of other crimes of the suspect under detention even if the detention on a separate charge is illegal. Thus, the investigation of other crimes can be permitted only if it does not actually harm the judicial function of a court and the right in order to defense of suspect.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 拘束令狀實質審査
Ⅲ. 拘束令狀의 發付 및 執行
Ⅳ. 拘束期間ㆍ再拘束의 制限ㆍ二重拘束ㆍ別件拘束
Ⅴ 檢討
參考文獻
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
현행 피의자 구속제도 운용의 적정성 검토
法學論文集
2013 .01
-
구속요소의 계량화를 통한 구속기준 정립
형사법연구
2012 .01
-
체포ㆍ구속제도의 문제점과 개선방안
외법논집
2012 .01
-
불구속수사·재판의 원칙의 발전과 정체, 인신구속제도의 재편(再編) 방안
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
법원의 구속기간에 대한 소고
일감법학
2010 .01
-
구속제도의 이론과 실제
형사정책연구
2010 .06
-
被疑者의 拘束에 관한 小考
법학연구
2006 .11
-
법정구속의 문제점과 개선책
법학연구
2020 .05
-
성폭력범죄의 구속기준
비교형사법연구
2015 .01
-
한국과 일본의 체포‧구속제도에 대한 비교연구 - 체포‧구속의 법제 및 실무운용을 중심으로 -
비교형사법연구
2009 .01
-
형사소송법의 주요 개정과정과 의의
법학논집
2006 .01
-
피의자 인신구속제도의 정비방안
형사법연구
2003 .01
-
국제인권기준과 경찰서유치장
외법논집
2008 .01
-
심포지엄 특집 [발표2] 합동신문1) 관련 법령의 문제점과 개선 방향 II
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
심포지엄 특집 [발표1] 출입국관리법 제63조와 행정상 장기구금의 문제 및 개정 제안
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
심포지엄 특집 [발표3] 감염병 격리의 문제점과 개선방안1) - 격리의 실체적 절차적 요건을 중심으로 -
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
인신구속제도의 개선 필요성과 방향 - 긴급체포 및 구속의 제도적 개선점을 중심으로 -
비교형사법연구
2018 .01
-
군 수사절차상 인신구속제도의 문제점과 개선방안
형사정책연구
2003 .09
-
북한 형사소송법상 체포(逮捕)와 구속(拘束)
동아법학
2016 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-017573308