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
1. The cases before the 2002도 537 case(reversal and return) sentenced on 2004. 12. 16 at the supreme court on the basis of system of agreement from all members put a construction that the protocol includes the practical establishment of the fact, which means it is accurately stated according to what the suspect had said. The case has decided if formal establishment of fact is approved, practical establishment of fact is presumed. Therefore, most cases have been given the verdict of guilty by choosing suspect's examination protocol as an evidence. However, this 2002도 537case means that if a defendant argues at the court that the contents of suspect examination protocol written by the prosecutor is different from what he/she stated, the evidential capacity of suspect examination protocol written by the prosecutor is lost.
2. As you see in the judgment of this case, I think Article 312 in the code of criminal procedure has problem. There have been criticism on this Article 312 in the code of criminal procedure, and questions about violation about the constitution have been raised because of the sense of discrimination between Clause 1 and Clause 2 of Article 312. compared to Clause 2, Article 312 Clause 1 doesn't fit into preamble rules. In addition, what the criticism is aimed at is that there is discrimination in evidential capacity between suspect examination protocol written by the prosecutor and the one by judicial police officer without reasonable reason. Which is, clauses above is ignoring preamble rules and also setting up classes among prosecutors and judicial police officers. There are more objective opinions including that this clause put the efficiency of war against crime first than interests of suspect to excess and there is serious unconstitutional element invading people's rights of equality guaranteed by a constitution.
The entire rules in Article 312 Clause 1 are hard to find in any legislative cases in all country, which base oneself on principle of trial for modern criminal litigation. It is so focused on finding the real truth 'quickly' that it is ignoring finding the real truth 'justly'. It failed to harmonize 'quickness' and 'justice', therefore it goes against above existing constitution and three guidelines of criminal litigation.
The significance of the decision on system of agreement from all members made by the supreme court is that it strengthened the principle of trial of our code of criminal procedure and showed strong will that the court will innovative existing way of criminal litigation, which based on protocol draw up by investigation organizations.
Also, regarding construction of body of Article 312 in the code of criminal procedure and evidence, it is regarded that 3-step presumption collapsed taking theory of added requisites into consideration, which says essential condition both of the body and the evidence are needed. Especially, it views prosecutors are responsible for proving credible condition, not the suspect.
3. In conclusion, above clause doesn't fit into preamble rules declared on the evidence law and also violates rights of equality stated on the constitution, in that it discriminates in the first place between people and prosecutors who submit the result acquired behind closed doors to the court and get approval easily about the evidential capacity of that protocol.
2. As you see in the judgment of this case, I think Article 312 in the code of criminal procedure has problem. There have been criticism on this Article 312 in the code of criminal procedure, and questions about violation about the constitution have been raised because of the sense of discrimination between Clause 1 and Clause 2 of Article 312. compared to Clause 2, Article 312 Clause 1 doesn't fit into preamble rules. In addition, what the criticism is aimed at is that there is discrimination in evidential capacity between suspect examination protocol written by the prosecutor and the one by judicial police officer without reasonable reason. Which is, clauses above is ignoring preamble rules and also setting up classes among prosecutors and judicial police officers. There are more objective opinions including that this clause put the efficiency of war against crime first than interests of suspect to excess and there is serious unconstitutional element invading people's rights of equality guaranteed by a constitution.
The entire rules in Article 312 Clause 1 are hard to find in any legislative cases in all country, which base oneself on principle of trial for modern criminal litigation. It is so focused on finding the real truth 'quickly' that it is ignoring finding the real truth 'justly'. It failed to harmonize 'quickness' and 'justice', therefore it goes against above existing constitution and three guidelines of criminal litigation.
The significance of the decision on system of agreement from all members made by the supreme court is that it strengthened the principle of trial of our code of criminal procedure and showed strong will that the court will innovative existing way of criminal litigation, which based on protocol draw up by investigation organizations.
Also, regarding construction of body of Article 312 in the code of criminal procedure and evidence, it is regarded that 3-step presumption collapsed taking theory of added requisites into consideration, which says essential condition both of the body and the evidence are needed. Especially, it views prosecutors are responsible for proving credible condition, not the suspect.
3. In conclusion, above clause doesn't fit into preamble rules declared on the evidence law and also violates rights of equality stated on the constitution, in that it discriminates in the first place between people and prosecutors who submit the result acquired behind closed doors to the court and get approval easily about the evidential capacity of that protocol.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 대상 판례의 요지
Ⅲ. 검사작성의 피의자신문조서의 증거능력
Ⅳ. 대상 판례의 의의
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 1984. 6. 26. 선고 84도748 판결
가. 형사소송법 제312조 제1항에서 말하는 검사작성의 피의자신문조서의 성립의 진정이라 함은 간인, 서명, 날인 등 조서의 형식적인 진정성립뿐만 아니라 그 조서가 진술자의 진술내용대로 기재된 것이라는 실질적인 진정성립까지 포함하는 뜻으로 풀이하여야 한다.
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
개정 형사소송법에 따른 검사가 작성한 공범에 대한 피의자신문조서의 증거능력
법학논총
2020 .10
-
검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력과 성립의 진정 : 대법원 2004.12.16.2002도537 전원합의체 판결의 검토를 중심으로
법학연구
2006 .11
-
검사의 신문조서 작성권한에 관한 연혁적 비교연구
경찰학연구
2018 .06
-
검사작성 피의자신문조서의 예외적 증거능력 요건에 대한 재검토* *이 논문은 2019년도 원광디지털대학교의 교비 지원에 의해서 수행됨(This paper was supported by Wonkwang Digital University in 2019). - 전문법칙과 공판중심주의와의 관계를 중심으로 -
치안정책연구
2019 .01
-
공범에 대한 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 소고(小考)
비교형사법연구
2010 .01
-
피의자신문조서에 대한 형사소송법 제314조의 적용문제 : 그리고 피의자신문조서의 증거능력에 관한 입법론
경찰학연구
2011 .09
-
검사작성의 피고인이 된 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 인정요건 : 전문법칙과의 관계에서
동아법학
2010 .11
-
검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력
한양법학
2005 .12
-
소송이념구현의 관점에서 피의자신문조서의 증거능력인정과정상 제 문제
경찰학연구
2012 .09
-
피의자 신문시 참여의무에 관한 연구
한국경찰연구
2014 .01
-
검사작성 피의자신문조서와 영상녹화물의 증거능력
저스티스
2008 .10
-
개정 형사소송법상 조서의 증거능력 규정 논의 경과
형사정책연구
2007 .09
-
사법경찰관이 작성한 공범에 대한 피의자신문 조서의 증거능력
법학연구
2014 .05
-
진술번복 증인에 대한 검사 작성 피의자신문조서에관한 위법성판단과정에 대한 논증 검토
홍익법학
2014 .01
-
검사의 직무상불법행위에 대한 배상책임연구 : 한ㆍ미 판례를 비교하며
형사정책연구
2003 .09
-
형사소송 관련 법률 개정안에 대한 제 검토
법학논총
2007 .08
-
미국 증거법상 전문법칙 및 수사단계에서의 진술내지 조서의 증거능력
저스티스
2005 .04
-
피고인의 공소사실과 관련한 공동피고인에 대한 경찰작성 신문조서의 증거능력 -왜 제312조 ‘제4항’이 아니라 ‘제3항’을 적용하는가?-
형사법연구
2010 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
[사례연구ㆍ형법] 현주건조물방화치사죄, 사기죄와 자살관여죄 등의 성립여부 및 공모관계이탈과 공동정범의 성립여부
윤영철
고시계
2013
.12
현주건조물등방화치사죄 관련 죄수, 특별형법 간의 법조경합, 도로교통법위반(음주측정불응) 등
문채규
고시계
2012
.12
[형법] 신용카드관련범죄, 주거침입죄, 원인에 있어서 자유로운 행위
이경무
,
임웅
고시계
2011
.02
[刑法] 信用카드와 詐欺罪 및 竊盜罪
鄭哲昊
고시계
2006
.09
[연습/형법] 교사범의 성립범위 및 상해죄와 살인죄, 강도살인죄의 관계
최우찬
고시연구
1998
.11
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-016008995