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
It is a question the recording tape which is recorded secretly by a private individual is effective as a evidence or not. It became an issue as the wire tapping and secret recording of conversation was increased accompanied by the development of science.
At first I examined ‘the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence’ would be applied to the evidence which was obtained by an individual. And I concluded that the exclusionary rule must be applied to the individual’s illegal conduct as well as the investigator’s illegal conduct.
The protection for the Secret of Communication Act prohibits the hearing and recording of telephonic conversation and oral conversation between others. So it is not allowed to record in secret the others’ communication.
And the recording in secret by the one side of communication is also illegal. Even though it is not the violation against the protection for the Secret of Communication Act, it violates the privacy of the counterpart. But the secret recording by a third person with one side’s permission must be regarded as a violation against the protection for the Secret of Communication Act. Because It is the violation against the right of free communication.
Also, the recording tape must fulfill the condition of clause 1 of Article 313 on the Criminal Procedure Act to get the admissibility of evidence.
At first I examined ‘the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence’ would be applied to the evidence which was obtained by an individual. And I concluded that the exclusionary rule must be applied to the individual’s illegal conduct as well as the investigator’s illegal conduct.
The protection for the Secret of Communication Act prohibits the hearing and recording of telephonic conversation and oral conversation between others. So it is not allowed to record in secret the others’ communication.
And the recording in secret by the one side of communication is also illegal. Even though it is not the violation against the protection for the Secret of Communication Act, it violates the privacy of the counterpart. But the secret recording by a third person with one side’s permission must be regarded as a violation against the protection for the Secret of Communication Act. Because It is the violation against the right of free communication.
Also, the recording tape must fulfill the condition of clause 1 of Article 313 on the Criminal Procedure Act to get the admissibility of evidence.
#사인의 비밀녹음
#사인의 위법수집증거
#통신비밀보호법
#도청
#일반 당사자에 의한 비밀녹음
#비밀녹음과 형사소송법 제313조 제1항
#taped evidence
#secretly recorded tape
#wire tapping
#exclusion of evidence illegally obtained by a private individual
#the protection for the secret of communication act
#clause 1 of Article 313 on the law of criminal procedure
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 사인이 위법하게 수집한 증거의 증거능력에 관한 일반적 검토
Ⅲ. 사인에 의한 비밀녹음의 허용성 문제
Ⅳ. 사인에 의한 진술녹음과 전문법칙의 적용
Ⅴ. 결어
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (31)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
[형사소송법] 私人에 의한 비밀녹음의 증거능력과 함정수사
김태계
고시계
2010
.09
진술거부권을 고지하지 않고 얻은 자백의 증거능력 배제 근거 : 자백배제법칙의 이론적 근거를 중심으로
김두식
법학연구
2015
.01
증거재판주의와 새로운 증명 방법의 증거능력 : 재판의 정당화 관점에서 본 영상녹화물과 조사자증언의 증거능력
조기영
동아법학
2015
.02
[사례연구ㆍ형법] 현주건조물방화치사죄, 사기죄와 자살관여죄 등의 성립여부 및 공모관계이탈과 공동정범의 성립여부
윤영철
고시계
2013
.12
현장녹음된 녹음테이프와 녹음파일 등에 근거한 녹취록의 증거능력에 관한 연구
고시면
사법행정
2014
.01
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-300-002796249