형사소송법 제313조에 대한 해석론적, 입법론적 고찰

Abstract

The Criminal Procedure Law §313-1 rules admissibility of evidence of a statement and document recording the statement, Law §313-2 rules admissibility of evidence of a exert opinion. Specially, We know few case to produce proof of Document recording the statement. We judge admissibility of evidence of tape recorded a statement of other people like document recording the statement. So, The Criminal Procedure Law §313 is very important rules. But, Because The Criminal Procedure Law §313-1 rules a sentence to a statement and document recording the statement, it is different from systems and conditions. it caused unnecessary arguments since we don not know a writer. Whether or not it is admissibility of evidence except there are a holograph and an autograph, it is proved by way besides a statement of a person who makes a statement, it is desired that we are not recognized as right of the opposite examination, a clause of The Criminal Procedure Law §313-1 apply a statement and document recording the statement, it require conditions of The Criminal Procedure Law §313-1, legislative problems and interpretative doubts are entwined. And The Criminal Procedure Law §313-2 require conditions of admissibility of evidence like a statement. but in case of a exert opinion, most admissibility of evidence is guaranteed by a system. it is inappropriate for a exert opinion take no thought that probative force is major matter. Accordingly, A statement does not apply a proviso of The Criminal Procedure Law §313-1. A writer and original writer is possible Recognition of document recording the statement. I think that if the clause 1 of §313 fill conditions, conditions of 1 of §313 is not necessary. And although we have not a holograph and a autograph, it is admissibility of evidence if we know a writer. After other people have the right of a cross-examination, it is admissibility of evidence. Specially, I propose that A exert opinion written the order of a law court is admissibility of evidence as far as circumstances permit. Hence, I urge many argument and revised law.