위법수집증거배제법칙의 도입과 피해자의 지위

이윤제

추천

검색

자료유형: 학술저널

저자정보: 이윤제

저널정보: 한국피해자학회 피해자학연구 피해자학연구 제17권 제2호

발행연도: 2009.1

수록면: 289 - 309 (21page)

이용수

📌

연구주제

📖

연구배경

🔬

연구방법

🏆

연구결과

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기

The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The exclusionary rule enforces this constitutional provision by excluding from the trial of a case any evidence that has been obtained by the government through means which violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule operates as a bar to the use of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. The US courts have been reluctant to impose exclusion as a judicial remedy for a violation of a federal statute or regulation, or a Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The revised Code of Korean Criminal Procedure introduced the exclusionary rule of the US to the criminal justice system where Korean Supreme Court has been refusing to apply the rule to the material evidence which is obtained by the illegal search or seizure of the government. It provides that the evidence which is obtained by violating due process of law shall not be admitted. The admission of the evidence, in Korea, depends on whether the government followed the due process of law while the evidence that has been secured by violation of the constitutional right shall be excluded in US. In addition, the Korean Supreme Court recently ruled that, in principle, the exclusionary rule should be applied to the material evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure process which did not follow the Korean Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law. After all, there is a chance that the slight violation of the Criminal Procedure Code by investigative agents would result in the violation of due process of law and exclusion in Korean courts under the Korean Supreme Court's ruling. I disagree with this decision of Korean Supreme Court because this ruling did not deeply considered the one of the goals in criminal procedure - the discovery of the truth. The standard of the exclusionary rule must be whether the illegality of government's violation is substantial or serious considering the spirit of due process of law. It was the minor opinion of that Supreme Court's ruling. The exclusionary rule applies only to governmental action, not to private action. However, the evidence which is illegally obtained by the private person may be denied admission to the court through balancing test where the court decides the defendant's privacy is more important than public interest including the victim's damage.

The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The exclusionary rule enforces this constitutional provision by excluding from the trial of a case any evidence that has been obtained by the government through means which violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule operates as a bar to the use of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. The US courts have been reluctant to impose exclusion as a judicial remedy for a violation of a federal statute or regulation, or a Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The revised Code of Korean Criminal Procedure introduced the exclusionary rule of the US to the criminal justice system where Korean Supreme Court has been refusing to apply the rule to the material evidence which is obtained by the illegal search or seizure of the government. It provides that the evidence which is obtained by violating due process of law shall not be admitted. The admission of the evidence, in Korea, depends on whether the government followed the due process of law while the evidence that has been secured by violation of the constitutional right shall be excluded in US. In addition, the Korean Supreme Court recently ruled that, in principle, the exclusionary rule should be applied to the material evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure process which did not follow the Korean Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law. After all, there is a chance that the slight violation of the Criminal Procedure Code by investigative agents would result in the violation of due process of law and exclusion in Korean courts under the Korean Supreme Court's ruling. I disagree with this decision of Korean Supreme Court because this ruling did not deeply considered the one of the goals in criminal procedure - the discovery of the truth. The standard of the exclusionary rule must be whether the illegality of government's violation is substantial or serious considering the spirit of due process of law. It was the minor opinion of that Supreme Court's ruling. The exclusionary rule applies only to governmental action, not to private action. However, the evidence which is illegally obtained by the private person may be denied admission to the court through balancing test where the court decides the defendant's privacy is more important than public interest including the victim's damage.

#Exclusionary rule #Search and seizure #Victims #Due process #Illegally obtained evidence

참고문헌 (26)

참고문헌 신청

Jefferson L / 2007 / Ingram, Criminal evidence / LexisNexis

Richard S. Frase / 1995 / German criminal justice as a guide to american law reform: Similar problems, better solutions? / Boston College International and Comparative Law R

Robert M / 2003 / Bloom, Search, Seizure, and Warrants / Praeger Publishers

Ronald L. Carlson / 2005 / Criminal justice procedure / Anderson Publishing Co

Stephen A. Saltzburg / 2000 / American criminal procedure / Thomson West

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이윤제

소속기관 한국피해자학회

주요연구분야 사회과학 > 법학

논문수 1 이용수 5

최근 본 자료

전체보기

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
AI 학습용 데이터	원문	원문 PDF 파일
AI 학습용 데이터	원문 + 메타 (기본/상세)	원문 PDF 파일 및 서지정보 CSV
대량 구매용 데이터	B2B 구독 방식	특정 자료 한정으로 원문 접근 권한 부여
대량 구매용 데이터	URL 전달 방식	바로 PDF 뷰어를 열람할 수 있는 URL 제공

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
AI 학습용 데이터	기본 메타	발행기관명, 간행물명, 권호명, 권(vol), 호(issue), 통권, 발행연도, 발행월, 논문명, 저자명, 시작페이지, 종료페이지, 전체페이지, 상세페이지URL
상세 메타 데이터	발행기관 메타	발행기관 이명, 영문명, 창립연도, 홈페이지URL, 발행기관 소개
	간행물 메타	부제목, 간행물 유형, ISSN, ISBN, 최초발행연도, 폐간연도, 간행빈도, 발행주기, 등재사항, 이용수, 피인용수, 권호수, 논문수, 표지이미지
	논문 메타	작성 언어, 부제목, 대등제목, 목차, 키워드, 초록, 이미지, 참고문헌, 이용수, 피인용수, 논문활용도, DBpia통합주제분류, KDC분류, DDC분류, 한국연구재단분류, UCI, DOI
	저자 메타	소속기관, 소속부서, 직급, 연구분야, 연구키워드, 이용수, 피인용수, 저자 논문활용도

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
※ 결합형/맞춤형 메타 데이터는 신청 내용에 따라 다양하게 제공 가능
이용순위 정보	주제분야별 많이 이용된 논문	“인문학”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	이용기관별 많이 이용된 논문	“중고등학교”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	세부기관별 많이 이용된 논문	“서울대학교”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	키워드별 많이 이용된 논문	“Chat GPT”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
키워드 정보	많이 이용된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 이용된 키워드
	많이 발행된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 발행된 키워드
	많이 검색된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 검색된 키워드
	연구 트렌드 키워드	특정 키워드 연관 연구동향 분석 데이터 키워드

논문 기본 정보

초록· 키워드

AI 요약

연구주제

연구배경

연구방법

연구결과

주요내용

목차

참고문헌 (26)

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

댓글(0)