공동피고인의 피고인적 지위와 법정진술－공동피고인의 피고인적 지위에서 바라본학설ㆍ판례의 문제점－
The Codefendant as a Defendant’s Status and the Court Confession
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In our law, codefendant(joint defendant) usually contains the accomplice,where two or more perpetrators work together, and the defendant who is in Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to the peculiarity of deposition of codefendant, admissibility of evidence may be divided into the case when accomplice is not a codefendant and when accomplice is a codefendant. If codefendant’s assertions are different from each other, this raises some question about the above statement. Here, the problem of admissibility of evidence by a confession of codefendant(joint defendant) is how to determine the essential condition to use any disadvantaged statement of the codefendant as a statement to admit a crime of the defendant. Especially, there is the argument on whether we can use confession by the codefendant as the admissibility for a judgement of the other codefendant. Furthermore, the problem of admissibility of evidence and eligibility as a witness by a confession of codefendant is mainly remained to the interpretation of literature theories and the judicial precedents. The court states that the court confession by codefendant is admitted as evidence for the charge of the other defendant. They also make a definite decision that there is no problem when codefendant is not relationship as accomplice, he or she is in a position as the 3rd person and should be a witness who should recognize as qualification of witness. In here, it is necessary to discuss if his or her statement as codefendant can be used as a evidence to prove a charge of the other defendant. The interpretative controversy over the admissibility of evidence about the confession by codefendant is a typical example of those problems. As a result, the court confession by codefendant may not the problem simply related to the formal interpretation of criminal procedure act, rather it needed to consider the essential codefendant as a defendant’s status of criminal procedure act on the basis of constitutional requests.
Abstract
In our law, codefendant(joint defendant) usually contains the accomplice,where two or more perpetrators work together, and the defendant who is in Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to the peculiarity of deposition of codefendant, admissibility of evidence may be divided into the case when accomplice is not a codefendant and when accomplice is a codefendant. If codefendant’s assertions are different from each other, this raises some question about the above statement. Here, the problem of admissibility of evidence by a confession of codefendant(joint defendant) is how to determine the essential condition to use any disadvantaged statement of the codefendant as a statement to admit a crime of the defendant. Especially, there is the argument on whether we can use confession by the codefendant as the admissibility for a judgement of the other codefendant. Furthermore, the problem of admissibility of evidence and eligibility as a witness by a confession of codefendant is mainly remained to the interpretation of literature theories and the judicial precedents. The court states that the court confession by codefendant is admitted as evidence for the charge of the other defendant. They also make a definite decision that there is no problem when codefendant is not relationship as accomplice, he or she is in a position as the 3rd person and should be a witness who should recognize as qualification of witness. In here, it is necessary to discuss if his or her statement as codefendant can be used as a evidence to prove a charge of the other defendant. The interpretative controversy over the admissibility of evidence about the confession by codefendant is a typical example of those problems. As a result, the court confession by codefendant may not the problem simply related to the formal interpretation of criminal procedure act, rather it needed to consider the essential codefendant as a defendant’s status of criminal procedure act on the basis of constitutional requests.
참고문헌 (42)
- 노명선, "형사소송법" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 신동운, "신형사소송법 제2판" (2009), 법문사
- 법원행정처, "형사소송법 개정법률 해설", ~ (2007)
- 법원행정처, "법원실무제요 형사 (Ⅱ)" (2008)
- 사법연수원, "형사증거법 및 사실인정론" (2011), 사법연수원 출판부
- 손동권, "형사소송법 개정신판" (2010), 세창출판사
- 정승환, "신형사소송법" (2008), 홍문사
- 심희기, "신형사소송법판례" (2009), 홍문사
- 심희기, "쟁점강의 형사소송법(제2판)" (2010), 삼영사
- 이은모, "형사소송법" (2010), 박영사
- 이재상, "신형사소송법 제2판" (2008), 박영사
- 이재상, "신형사소송법연습 제3판" (2008), 박영사
- 임동규, "형사소송법 제6판" (2009), 법문사
- 정영석, "형사소송법" (1994), 법문사
- 정웅석, "형사소송법 전정 제3판" (2009), 대명출판사
- 정종섭, "헌법학원론 제4판" (2009), 박영사
- 차용석, "형사소송법 제3판" (2008), 21세기사
- 三井, "입문 일본형사수속법" (2003), 법문사
- Klesczewski, Diethelm, "Strafprozessrecht" (2007), Carl Heymanns Verlag
- 권오걸, "형사증거법상 공동피고인의 소송관계", 형사법연구, (12) (1999), 한국형사법학회
- 권오걸, "증인적격과 위증죄 - 피고인․공동피고인을 중심으로 -", 법학논고, (36), pp.29~54 (2011), 법학연구원
- 김봉수, "피고인의 공소사실과 관련한 공동피고인에 대한 경찰작성 신문조서의 증거능력 -왜 제312조 ‘제4항’이 아니라 ‘제3항’을 적용하는가?-", 형사법연구, 22(1), pp.73~96 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 김영갑, "서증의 증거능력과 증거조사방법의 비교검토, In 형사재판의 제문제 제2권" (1999), 박영사
- 김희균, "미국법 상 전문법칙의 최근 동향 : 공판중심주의의 문제", 형사법연구, 20(2), pp.225~244 (2008), 한국형사법학회
- 민영성, "공범자의 자백과 보강증거에 관한 판례의 비판적 검토", 형사법연구, (15) (2001), 한국형사법학회
- 박강우, "공동피고인의 증인적격과 공판정 진술의 증거능력", 고시연구, 30(7) (2003), 고시연구사
- 백형구, "공범자의 자백의 증명력", 고시연구, 20(10) (1993), 고시연구사
- 백형구, "공범자 자백의 증거능력", 저스티스, 33(1) (2000), 한국법학원
- 서보학, "공범자의 법정외 진술의 증거능력과 자백의 보강법칙, In 형사판례연구⑾" (2003), 박영사
- 손동권, "공범자 자백의 증거능력과 증명력", 고시연구, 30(9) (2003), 고시연구사
- 신이철, "공동피고인 진술의 증거법적(증거능력) 규제", 형사법연구, 21(2), pp.99~120 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 여훈구, "검사작성의 공범자에 대한 피의자신문조서의 증거능력, In 형사판례연구⑴" (1993), 박영사
- 윤동호, "개정형사소송법과 공범의 자백의 증거능력에 관한 해석론", 형사법연구, 20(1), pp.191~214 (2008), 한국형사법학회
- 이경렬, "공동피고인의 법정자백과 파기환송심에서의 불이익변경금 지원칙의 적용", 고시계, 55(7) (2010), 고시계사
- 이은모, "공동피고인의 자백의 증거능력", 법학논총, 23(1), pp.1~22 (2006), 법학연구소
- 임동규, "형사증거법상 ‘공범인 공동피고인의 범위’, In 형사판례연구⒁" (2006), 박영사
- 임동규, "공범인 공동피고인의 범위", 고시계, 51(9) (2006), 고시계사
- 정웅석, "공범인 공동피고인의 법정진술의 증거능력과 증명력, In 형사판례연구(17)" (2009), 박영사
- 정진연, "형사증거법상 공동피고인의 증인적격과 공판정 진술(자백)의 증거능력", 성균관법학, 19(3), pp.503~532 (2007), 법학연구소
- 최병각, "공범과 공동피고인, 왜 문제인가?", 저스티스, (122), pp.165~184 (2011), 한국법학원
- 최진안, "피고인과 피고인 아닌 자의 진술에 대한 증거법상의 몇 가지 문제", 성균관법학, 22(3), pp.399~428 (2010), 법학연구소
- 황종국, "공범의 자백", 사법논집, 26 (1995), 법원도서관