학술논문
형사소송법상 증거법의 연혁과 미래 - 조서 규정을 중심으로
이용수 203
- 영문명
- History and Future of Korean Criminal Evidence (Law-On the Protocol of the Pre-trial Investigation)
- 발행기관
- 한국형사법학회
- 저자명
- 이완규(Lee Wan-Kyu) 박용철
- 간행물 정보
- 『형사법연구』형사법연구 제19권 제3호 (上), 111~144쪽, 전체 34쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2007.01.20
6,880원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
Recently many important parts of criminal procedure was amended by the National Assembly. Especially, the evidence law on the pre-trial statements before the investigative institution and the protocol is greatly changed.
Since 2003, some radical administrative judges of the Judicial Administration Center of the Supreme Court, lawyers and professors have insisted that the pre-trial statements before the investigative institution should not be admissible when the declarant change the statement on trial. Only the statement on trial be admissible. They argued this requirement as so-called " trial priority principle".
The tendency for the denial of the admissiblity of the protocol of the pre-trial investigation have been developed by the case law of the Supreme Court for the interpretation of the provision for the authentication of the protocol.
Criminal procedure requires the authentication for the admissibility of the investigative protocol and provides that the authentication be proved only by the statement of the declarant. The idea of the authentication has been introduced by the drafters for making the investigative protocol one of the exhibits with which the statement in reality can be proved. And the provisions of declarant statement method for the proof of the authentication are to guarantee the presence of declarant in order for the Defendant to raise the objection and cross-examine the declarant as witness.
But the Court develops the concept of the substantial authentication. The substantial authentication are the correspondence of the written statements of the protocol with the statements in reality. Another serious interpretation is that the statements of the declarant, with which the authentication can be proved, mean the declarant"s approval of the authentication. Moreover, the Court prohibits any other proof for the exisitence of the statements in reality, when the admissibility of the protocol is denied.
This interpretation of the Court for the provision of the investigative protocol is far from the original intention of the drafters of korean criminal procedure and especially far from the general theory of evidence law. The radicalists, who lead the discussion in the Presidential Committee on the Judicial Reform(PCJR), go too extreme with the unreasonable tendency of the Court and drafted a bill for the revision of the evidence law which restrict seriously the admissibility of the pre-trial statement before investigative institution, including the public attorney. It is obvious that this tendency be far from trial-priority principle in real meaning.
The National Assembly recognized the unreasonableness of the Court"s interpretation and the problem of the bill of the PCJR and corrected the bill. According to the corrected bill, the authentication can be proved by the declarant"s statements, video-recorded tape or other methods objectively. By this amendment, the unreasonableness of the result which the Court"s substantial authentication concept bring about could be partly solved in the future. But the substantial authentication concept survives in the revised code. Therefore it is strange that the protocol can be admissible after the written statements be proved to be correspond with the real statement. Only the method of proof for this correspondence are pluralized.
In the future the evidence law should be revised again with the view to the general theory of the evidence law, and then the substantial authentication concept should be excluded.
Since 2003, some radical administrative judges of the Judicial Administration Center of the Supreme Court, lawyers and professors have insisted that the pre-trial statements before the investigative institution should not be admissible when the declarant change the statement on trial. Only the statement on trial be admissible. They argued this requirement as so-called " trial priority principle".
The tendency for the denial of the admissiblity of the protocol of the pre-trial investigation have been developed by the case law of the Supreme Court for the interpretation of the provision for the authentication of the protocol.
Criminal procedure requires the authentication for the admissibility of the investigative protocol and provides that the authentication be proved only by the statement of the declarant. The idea of the authentication has been introduced by the drafters for making the investigative protocol one of the exhibits with which the statement in reality can be proved. And the provisions of declarant statement method for the proof of the authentication are to guarantee the presence of declarant in order for the Defendant to raise the objection and cross-examine the declarant as witness.
But the Court develops the concept of the substantial authentication. The substantial authentication are the correspondence of the written statements of the protocol with the statements in reality. Another serious interpretation is that the statements of the declarant, with which the authentication can be proved, mean the declarant"s approval of the authentication. Moreover, the Court prohibits any other proof for the exisitence of the statements in reality, when the admissibility of the protocol is denied.
This interpretation of the Court for the provision of the investigative protocol is far from the original intention of the drafters of korean criminal procedure and especially far from the general theory of evidence law. The radicalists, who lead the discussion in the Presidential Committee on the Judicial Reform(PCJR), go too extreme with the unreasonable tendency of the Court and drafted a bill for the revision of the evidence law which restrict seriously the admissibility of the pre-trial statement before investigative institution, including the public attorney. It is obvious that this tendency be far from trial-priority principle in real meaning.
The National Assembly recognized the unreasonableness of the Court"s interpretation and the problem of the bill of the PCJR and corrected the bill. According to the corrected bill, the authentication can be proved by the declarant"s statements, video-recorded tape or other methods objectively. By this amendment, the unreasonableness of the result which the Court"s substantial authentication concept bring about could be partly solved in the future. But the substantial authentication concept survives in the revised code. Therefore it is strange that the protocol can be admissible after the written statements be proved to be correspond with the real statement. Only the method of proof for this correspondence are pluralized.
In the future the evidence law should be revised again with the view to the general theory of the evidence law, and then the substantial authentication concept should be excluded.
목차
Ⅰ. 서
Ⅱ. 일제시대의 증거법
Ⅲ. 현행법 체제의 성립
Ⅳ. 진정성립을 둘러싼 법원의 해석과 법 왜곡, 그리고 입법적 시정의 역사
Ⅴ. 개정 형사소송법상 조서규정의 평가 및 증거법의 장래
〈Abstract〉
[토론문] “형사소송법상 증거법의 연혁과 미래-조서 규정을 중심으로-”에 대한 토론
Ⅱ. 일제시대의 증거법
Ⅲ. 현행법 체제의 성립
Ⅳ. 진정성립을 둘러싼 법원의 해석과 법 왜곡, 그리고 입법적 시정의 역사
Ⅴ. 개정 형사소송법상 조서규정의 평가 및 증거법의 장래
〈Abstract〉
[토론문] “형사소송법상 증거법의 연혁과 미래-조서 규정을 중심으로-”에 대한 토론
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 사이버범죄의 과거, 현재 그리고 미래
- 한국형사법학회 창립 50주년 기념학술대회 일정
- 형사절차상 피의자·피고인의 권리의 회고 및 전망
- 기업범죄 통제에 있어서 형법의 역할과 한계 - 업무상 배임죄 배제론에 대한 응답
- 경제형법의 변화와 동향
- 한국 형사법의 발전과 여성
- 한국형법상 생명보호에 관한 죄에 대한 회고적 성찰과 새로운 입법방향
- 회복적 사법과 우리나라의 형사제재체계
- 생명과학기술의 발달에 따른 형사입법의 회고와 전망
- 기업대표이사의 형사책임귀속을 위한 형법이론 연구
- 형사소송법상 증거법의 연혁과 미래 - 조서 규정을 중심으로
- 生命保護의 觀點에서 본 自殺 敎唆·幇助罪의 검토
- 생명의 종기에서 형법상 생명보호 - 안락사에 관한 논의를 중심으로
- 축사
- 축사
- 형사법학회 태동기의 회상
- 한국의 형사사법과 회복적 사법 - 과거, 현재, 그리고 미래
- 소년사법에서의 소년보호
- 한국형사법학회의 창립 50주년을 축하하며
- 범죄피해자와 회복적 사법
- 학회 창립 50주년을 맞이하여
- 형사소송법 개정의 역사와 전망
- 형사법상의 아동보호 법제에 대한 연구
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!