형사소송법 제313조 개정 유감

Abstract

A part of the criminal procedure code was amended on Monday, 2016. The amended contents are §35 (3). §314, §440, and so on. The most important thing is establishing while they amend §313 (1). To sum up the amended content, ① a case that an information, like a text message, saved at a data storage media, not in writing, although, extends to apply a principle of law about written statement or document recording of oral statement as it is. ② and, although, in a case that the truth of establishment doesn’t prove, by the statement of a person making a statement, replacing to the truth of establishment through the objective way, ③ in a few cases, the accused has an opportunity about a cross-examination. In this entry, this writer reviews that if such a each amended contents is of any proper, and that if this amendment settles several matters that have raised in the past well. As a result, this time, only a part of many problems that raised §313 was amended and the others were disregarded. Also, amended contents are so poor. Meanwhile, through the many writing, a common main problem of §313 is that confused about in language because §313 (1) describes a written statement and document recording of oral statement, preparing person or person who makes an original statement, in case of the accused himself and a third party at once. A written statement of the accused, a written statement of not the accused, a storing article of information of the accused and a storing article of information of not the accused, these four divided articles don’t make any misunderstanding. However, through the body and clue of a §313 (2), the amended law confused this problem worse, let alone any solution. Furthermore, it haven’t even touched who admits the guarantee of cross question right in a body of §313 (1) and that the clue of §313 (1) can be applied in a statement of the accused. Like a problem of the old law, problems of the amended law, this writing pointed, are almost literal things, not a juridical ones, If this writer is right, §313 should be amended quickly. It is so important not only a juridical review in a legislative procedure, but also a literal review.