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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2021.12
- 수록면
- 1 - 214 (214page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Articles 12 and 27 of the Constitution stipulate due process, warrant requirement, right to assistance of counsel, right to prompt trial, and presumption of innocence as the principles of criminal procedure to guarantee personal liberty, which is a prerequisite for guaranteeing all basic rights. As part of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 275-2 and 70 also stipulate the principle of presumption of innocence, while limiting the grounds for detention that restrict personal liberty. Accordingly, “detention should only be used as a last resort if no alternative means are effective in fighting crime,” and when alternatives to detention succeed in advancing the criminal proceedings, it is natural to set up a system to select these alternatives in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
Various institutional mechanisms in the current Criminal Procedure Act are intended to realize the investigation and trial without confinement; however, given the reality of the current detention and release system, how much these institutional mechanisms contribute to realizing the principles of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act is questionable. From the outside, Korea’s release system seems to have an institution for achieving the principles of investigation and trial without detention as there are various systems in place ranging from direct judgment of warrants, which is considered to be the first step in detention and release, to reviewing the legality of confinement, to bail, to suspension of execution of custody, and to revocation of confinement. Nevertheless, closer examination reveals several structural problems. In the first place, it is difficult to decide which proceeding to use without substantial legal knowledge since each system differs in applicants, subjects of judgment, requirements, procedures, and effects. In addition, under the premise that the grounds for detention were strictly examined during the direct judgment of warrants, which is the first stage of the confinement, the request for bail is rarely accepted unless a change of circumstances occurs, such as the victim agreeing to settle or the deposit equivalent to the damage being made during subsequent review of the legality of the confinement or bail examination after prosecution. On the one hand, the notion of retribution or punishment that “one who is detained must have committed some crime” is woven into the public’s legal sentiment and is still evident in the prosecution and court practices regarding the arrest of individuals.
Although there are various institutional mechanisms for realizing the principles of investigation and trial without detention, the current arrest and release system is not functioning properly due to the following reasons: (1) the principle of investigation and trial without confinement is not deeply rooted in practice, and that the perception of arrest as punishment is still prevalent, and (2) the arrestee release system is structurally flawed. This study examines the problems associated with the current arrestee release system, and proposes ways to improve the bail system based on the analysis.
Various institutional mechanisms in the current Criminal Procedure Act are intended to realize the investigation and trial without confinement; however, given the reality of the current detention and release system, how much these institutional mechanisms contribute to realizing the principles of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act is questionable. From the outside, Korea’s release system seems to have an institution for achieving the principles of investigation and trial without detention as there are various systems in place ranging from direct judgment of warrants, which is considered to be the first step in detention and release, to reviewing the legality of confinement, to bail, to suspension of execution of custody, and to revocation of confinement. Nevertheless, closer examination reveals several structural problems. In the first place, it is difficult to decide which proceeding to use without substantial legal knowledge since each system differs in applicants, subjects of judgment, requirements, procedures, and effects. In addition, under the premise that the grounds for detention were strictly examined during the direct judgment of warrants, which is the first stage of the confinement, the request for bail is rarely accepted unless a change of circumstances occurs, such as the victim agreeing to settle or the deposit equivalent to the damage being made during subsequent review of the legality of the confinement or bail examination after prosecution. On the one hand, the notion of retribution or punishment that “one who is detained must have committed some crime” is woven into the public’s legal sentiment and is still evident in the prosecution and court practices regarding the arrest of individuals.
Although there are various institutional mechanisms for realizing the principles of investigation and trial without detention, the current arrest and release system is not functioning properly due to the following reasons: (1) the principle of investigation and trial without confinement is not deeply rooted in practice, and that the perception of arrest as punishment is still prevalent, and (2) the arrestee release system is structurally flawed. This study examines the problems associated with the current arrestee release system, and proposes ways to improve the bail system based on the analysis.
목차
[표지]
[발간사]
[목차]
표 차례
그림 차례
[국문요약]
[제1장 연구의 필요성 및 목적]
[제2장 보석제도에 대한 일반적 고찰]
제1절 보석제도의 의의
제2절 보석제도의 연혁
제3절 보석제도의 이론적 근거
제4절 우리나라의 보석제도
[제3장 보석제도의 비교법적 고찰]
제1절 영미법계 국가(영국, 미국)
제2절 독일
제3절 일본
제4절 비교법적 고찰: 국내법 개선에 관한 시사점
[제4장 현행보석제도의 운용상의 문제점과 개선방안]
제1절 공식통계상의 보석제도의 운용현황 및 평가
제2절 현행 구속자 석방제도의 한계와 개선방안
[제5장 결론]
[참고문헌]
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
법정구속의 문제점과 개선책
법학연구
2020 .05
-
불구속수사·재판의 원칙의 발전과 정체, 인신구속제도의 재편(再編) 방안
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
시스템적으로 중요한 금융회사(SIFI)의 정리제도:채권자 손실분담제도(Bail-in)의 법적쟁점을 중심으로
은행법연구
2018 .01
-
바람직한 구속기준의 정립방향에 관한 검토 - 조건부 석방과 예방적 구금의 조화적 운용을 중심으로 -
형사소송 이론과 실무
2024 .03
-
북한 형사소송법상 체포(逮捕)와 구속(拘束)
동아법학
2016 .02
-
Is Bail-in Debt Bail-inable?
[KDI] Journal of Economic Policy
2019 .11
-
Bail-in to End the “Too Big To Fail” Dilemma
[KDI] KDI FOCUS
2017 .02
-
인신구속제도의 개선 필요성과 방향 - 긴급체포 및 구속의 제도적 개선점을 중심으로 -
비교형사법연구
2018 .01
-
공판단계에서 피고인 구속기간 제한의 문제점과 개선방안
법학연구
2023 .09
-
구속과 보석 내지 조건부 석방
형사법연구
2024 .06
-
전자감독 조건부 구속집행정지에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2022. 11. 22. 선고 2022모1799 결정을 중심으로 -
동아법학
2023 .05
-
전자보석제도의 문제점 및 대응방안에 관한 연구
교정연구
2021 .08
-
폐지되었지만 폐지되지 않은 보호감호 - 헌법재판소 2015. 9. 24. 2014헌바222 등(병합) 결정에 대한 비판적 검토
형사정책
2015 .01
-
필요적 국선변호인 선정사유인 형사소송법 제33조 제1항 제1호의 ‘피고인이 구속된 때’의 의미
사법
2024 .09
-
부산신항 도선사고에 대한 도선사의 형사책임
비교형사법연구
2020 .01
-
성폭력범죄의 구속기준
비교형사법연구
2015 .01
-
긴급체포제도와 예외적인 사후영장원칙
형사법연구
2019 .01
-
공동체 보호와 구속기준
비교법연구
2024 .04
-
인신보호법의 개선방안에 관한 연구
법학연구
2020 .09
-
보복범죄 방지와 범죄피해자 보호를 위한 구속제도의 재설계
피해자학연구
2021 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2023-364-000225846