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.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This Article inquires into the unique theoretical system of the German theory of Evidence Use Prohibition(Beweisverwertungsverbote) and its development, focusing on the German courts' main decisions. BGH and BVerfG have not explicitly issued a generally valid theory of exclusion. Since 1970s, however, the German courts have sought to develop their own unique exclusionary system.
First, The German courts have firmly excluded confession obtained from violation of Section 136a of StPO. BGH has shown judicial firmness to exclude confession obtained by a violation of the provision by StPO §100a-101 and ‘G-10 Law.’
Second, by a series of decisions in the 1970s following the 'Recording Tape Case' and the ‘Diary Case’, the German courts have established their own unique exclusionary rule in the field of “constitutional use prohibition.” The theory is established on the right to the free development of personality in Article 2(1) of the Basic Law. It is called “three-step theory”(Dreistufentheorie) because it excludes illegally obtained evidence, depending on which sphere of privacy rights of the defendant
has been violated.
Third, in non-Section 136a of StPO cases and non-constitutional use prohibition cases, the German courts exercise their discretion based on a constitutional principle of proportionality(Verhaltnissmaßigkeit).
The deterrence rationale, which is the core rationale of the U.S. exclusionary rule, cannot be found in the above German exclusionary rule. Although recent cases show that German courts have just begun to recognize that the traditional method of regulating police misconduct is not enough, and that deterrence of police misconduct by exclusionary rule is necessary, it would be a hasty conclusion to say that the scope of the German exclusionary rule will expand up to its American counterpart.
First, The German courts have firmly excluded confession obtained from violation of Section 136a of StPO. BGH has shown judicial firmness to exclude confession obtained by a violation of the provision by StPO §100a-101 and ‘G-10 Law.’
Second, by a series of decisions in the 1970s following the 'Recording Tape Case' and the ‘Diary Case’, the German courts have established their own unique exclusionary rule in the field of “constitutional use prohibition.” The theory is established on the right to the free development of personality in Article 2(1) of the Basic Law. It is called “three-step theory”(Dreistufentheorie) because it excludes illegally obtained evidence, depending on which sphere of privacy rights of the defendant
has been violated.
Third, in non-Section 136a of StPO cases and non-constitutional use prohibition cases, the German courts exercise their discretion based on a constitutional principle of proportionality(Verhaltnissmaßigkeit).
The deterrence rationale, which is the core rationale of the U.S. exclusionary rule, cannot be found in the above German exclusionary rule. Although recent cases show that German courts have just begun to recognize that the traditional method of regulating police misconduct is not enough, and that deterrence of police misconduct by exclusionary rule is necessary, it would be a hasty conclusion to say that the scope of the German exclusionary rule will expand up to its American counterpart.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 증거금지론의 이론구조 - 판례를 중심으로
Ⅲ. 증거금지론의 특징 - 미국 위법수집증거배제법칙과 의 차이
Ⅳ. 맺음말 - ‘억지’이론의 수용?
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
법이 정한 절차에 따르지 아니하고 수집된 압수물의 증거능력
형사법연구
2008 .01
-
위법수집증거배제법칙의 도입과 피해자의 지위
피해자학연구
2009 .01
-
한국과 중국 법원의 위법수집증거배제법칙 적용에 관한 비교법적 검토
한양법학
2019 .05
-
미국의 체포·수색·압수제도의 이해 : 위법수집증거배제법칙과 명확성 원칙의 관점에서
경찰학연구
2011 .03
-
Soviet-German Relations and German Unification
국제정치논총
1991 .04
-
위법수집증거배제법칙의 실천적 과제
동아법학
2009 .08
-
사인(私人)이 수집한 형사사건의 증거와 증거배제법칙
형사법연구
2008 .01
-
압수수색과 위법수집증거배제법칙에 관한 연구
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2008 .03
-
口供排除规则的易经原则解析
동북아법연구
2017 .01
-
Two years since German Unification
[KIEP] 연구보고서
1993 .02
-
The German Reunification: An Analysis a Quarter Century After 1989/90
International Journal of Korean Unification Studies
2014 .01
-
Inter-German Relations
국제정치논총
1981 .12
-
자백배제법칙의 근거와 임의성의 판단 - 위법배제설의 관점에서 본 형사소송법 제309조의 의미 재검토 -
외법논집
2011 .01
-
‘재량적’ 위법수집증거배제(론)에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 왜 유독 ‘비진술증거’에 대해서만 ‘재량적 배제’를 인정하려 하는가? -
비교형사법연구
2009 .01
-
The Issue of German Reunification
국제정치논총
1983 .12
-
진술거부권 불고지에 대한 소송법적 문제
형사법연구
2010 .01
-
[일반논문] 통일 이전 탈동독자의 서독사회 적응실태에 대한 연구 - 1984년 서독에 정착한 탈동독자를 중심으로
아세아연구
2005 .09
-
개정 형사소송법과 자백의 증거능력
중앙법학
2007 .10
-
위법수집 비진술증거의 증거배제에 관한 대법원 판결의 흐름과 전망
아주법학
2012 .01
-
국민국가 속에서 국민의 자격－독일제국 성립부터 2차 대전의 패전까지－
일감법학
2013 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-364-003957402