메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국형사법학회 형사법연구 형사법연구 제21권 제2호
발행연도
2009.1
수록면
121 - 144 (24page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The amendment of Article 312 of Criminal Procedure Act proposed by the Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform and the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the Korean National Assembly contains the limitation on the admissibility of interrogatory, on par with the previous Supreme Court finding. It also eliminates that admissibility of the video recording of interrogation as prosecutory evidence or impeachment. Yet, the Act contains some elements that contradict the purport of amendment. It allows that video recording can be used to prove interrogatory’s substantial authenticity. The failure to prescribe the presence of defense counsel under reliable condition while videotaping interrogation is another setback. That the prosecutory authorities still can videotape interrogation with notice to the suspect and without his or her approval is also subject to controversy. The intent of videotaping interrogation is to protect the rights of the suspect, so it should be 1) allowed only with the suspect’s approval, or 2) if it is allowed with notice only, then it should be stopped as soon as the suspect refuses to be videotaped or 3) when the suspect requests withdrawal or exerts the right of deniability. The bill could be complemented with such stipulations as 4) a specification of the cases in which interrogation can be videotaped, 5) a rule that the entire interrogation should be taped, not a targeted moment or period of time, and 6) videotaping being granted at the request of the suspect or defense counsel.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (13)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

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

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0