본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

The Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Confessions, Electronic Communication and Physical Evidences in Korea

조국
아시아태평양법연구소 (Asia Pacific Law Institute)|2014.06|Journal of Korean Law|제13권 제2호|pp. 175-217|DOI 10.23110/jkl.2014.13.2.001

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

interrogationconfessionMirandawiretappingexclusionary rulesearch-and-seizureMassiahMapp

초록

The 1987 Constitution of Korea explicitly stipulates the principle of due process in criminal procedures and provides very detailed Bill of Rights provisions regarding criminal procedural rights. This “constitutionalization of criminal procedure” has brought significant changes in the theory and practice of the Korean criminal procedure. Exclusionary rules are in the middle of this “revolution”. The Korean judiciary and legislature that experienced the dark age of procedural rights under the long authoritarian rule chose to adopt the exclusionary rules as a useful tool to deter police misconduct. Firstly, this paper starts by reviewing the terrible situation under the authoritarian regime of Korea and the legal change after democratization. Secondly, focusing on the landmark judicial decisions and legislations including the Criminal Procedure Code and the Communication Privacy Protection Act, it examines three categories of exclusions: the exclusion of incriminating statements obtained in the process of illegal arrest or interrogation, communications by illegal wiretapping and physical evidences obtained by illegal search-and-seizure. Finally, it analyzes the remaining issues regarding the aforementioned exclusionary rules.

Abstract

The 1987 Constitution of Korea explicitly stipulates the principle of due process in criminal procedures and provides very detailed Bill of Rights provisions regarding criminal procedural rights. This “constitutionalization of criminal procedure” has brought significant changes in the theory and practice of the Korean criminal procedure. Exclusionary rules are in the middle of this “revolution”. The Korean judiciary and legislature that experienced the dark age of procedural rights under the long authoritarian rule chose to adopt the exclusionary rules as a useful tool to deter police misconduct. Firstly, this paper starts by reviewing the terrible situation under the authoritarian regime of Korea and the legal change after democratization. Secondly, focusing on the landmark judicial decisions and legislations including the Criminal Procedure Code and the Communication Privacy Protection Act, it examines three categories of exclusions: the exclusion of incriminating statements obtained in the process of illegal arrest or interrogation, communications by illegal wiretapping and physical evidences obtained by illegal search-and-seizure. Finally, it analyzes the remaining issues regarding the aforementioned exclusionary rules.

참고문헌 (54)

  1. "Constitution of the republic of korea art.12, 13& 27 & 28 (S. Kor.)"[URL]
  2. "The Communication Privacy Protection Act", Act No. 4650, Dec. 27, 1993, amended by Act. No. 12229, ~ (2014)
  3. Carl T. Rowan, "Red roses don’ bloom beautifully in the garbage can like South Korea", ~ (1966)
  4. Won Soon Park, "Vol.2, Documentary of the Barbaric Days 273-298", ~ (2006)
  5. In Sup Han, "Beyond the Authoritarian Criminal Law", 28~ (2000)
  6. See Kuk Cho, "Transitional Justice in Korea: Legally Coping With Past Wrongs After Democratization", Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J, 16, pp.3~ (2007)
  7. Catholic Human Rights Committee, "Judicial Murder: The Massacre of April 1975", 164~165 (2001)
  8. "Kim Ji Ha and his Age" (2013)[URL]
  9. See Kuk Cho, "Unfinished “Criminal Procedure Revolution” of Post-Democratization South Korea", Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y, 30, pp.3~ (2002)
  10. "Constitution of the republic of korea", ~
  11. "Criminal Procedure Act", Act No. 341, Sept. 23, 1954, amended by Act. No. 11572, Dec. 18, ~ (2012)
  12. Ji Woo Hwang, "Naeui Jakpoom Naeui Yeki", Dong-A Ilbo, ~ (1990)
  13. , 81Do2160, Oct. 13, 1981 (S. Kor.), , 1981
  14. Dong Woon Shin, "Criminal Procedure Law 7", 7~ (2014)
  15. "Constitutional Court", ~
  16. Jong Dae Bae, "New Criminal Procedure Law 5", ~ (2009)
  17. Kuk Cho, "Litigation in Korea 58", pp.69~71 (2010), Litigation in Korea
  18. , 92Do682, June 23, 1992 (S. Kor.),
  19. "See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436", ~ (1966)
  20. "Criminal Procedure Code", Act No. 341, Sept. 23, 1954, amended by Act. No. 11572, Dec. 18, ~ (2012)
  21. "See Massiah v. U.S., 377 U.S. 201", ~ (1964)
  22. "See Constitutional Court", ~
  23. "The Working Rules for Prosecutors’Cases", Ministry Decree, No. 766, Mar. 15, ~ (2012)
  24. Ministry of Justice, "Revised Criminal Procedure code 126", ~ (2007)
  25. "See Supreme Court", ~
  26. "Maeil Shinmun", ~ (2004)
  27. "See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643", ~ (1961)
  28. "Silverthrone Lumber v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385", ~ (1920)
  29. "Nardone v. U.S., 308 U.S. 338", ~ (1939)
  30. "Chosun Ilbo", ~ (2000)
  31. "Hankyoreh", ~ (2000)
  33. Chang Won Pyo, "Jungeiei juck dle", 278~284 (2014)
  34. Ki Soo Lee, "Huwijabaekei Eronga Silje", 192~193 (2012)
  35. "Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298", ~ (1985)
  36. "Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433", ~ (1974)
  37. See Kuk Cho, "Japanese “Prosecutorial Justice”and Its Limited Exclusionary Rule", Colum J. Asian L, 12(1), pp.57~58 (1998)
  38. "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45", ~ (1966)
  39. "Edward v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484", emphasis added, ~ (1981)
  40. "Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146", ~ (1990)
  41. "Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778", ~ (2009)
  42. "Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 636", ~ (1986)
  43. "Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370", ~ (2010)
  44. "See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370", ~ (2010)
  45. "See Nullified attorney’ right to participate in suspect interrogation" (2012)[URL]
  46. "Skinner v. Railway Labor Exec. Ass’, 489 U.S. 602, 614", ~ (1989)
  47. "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436", ~ (1966)
  48. See Kuk Cho, "Crime of Adultery in Korea: Inadequate Means for Maintaining Morality and Protecting Women", J. Korean L, 2, pp.1~ (2002)
  49. , 96Ga-Hap5541, "Apr. 9, 1997 (S. Kor.)", 1997
  50. "Federal Constitutional Court", Jan. 31, 1973, 34BVerfGE 238 (Ger.), ~ (1973)
  51. See Kuk Cho, "“Procedural Weakness”of German Criminal Justice and Its Unique Exclusionary Rules Based on the Right of Personality", Temp. Int’l & Comp. L. J, 15(1), pp.24~25 (2001)
  52. Legal Pol’y & Dep’t of Justice, "Truth in Criminal Justice’Series Office of Legal Policy: The Law of Pretrial Interrogation", U. Mich. J. L. Reform, 22(437), pp.535~536 (1989)
  53. Akhil Reed Amar, "Twenty-fifth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: Foreward: Sixth Amendment First Principles", Geo. L. J, 84, pp.641~ (1996)
  54. Akhil Reed Amar, "Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause", Mich. L. Rev, 93, pp.857~ (1995)

관련 논문AI추천

법이 정한 절차에 따르지 아니하고 수집된 압수물의 증거능력최석윤한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2008 · 제20권 제1호자백배제법칙의 근거와 임의성의 입증이은모법학연구원 · 법학논총2007 · 제24권 제2호진술거부권 불고지에 대한 소송법적 문제박용철한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2010 · 제22권 제1호독수과실의 원리 보론(補論)조국한국형사판례연구회 · 형사판례연구2015 · 제23권 2000년대 초기 대법원판례의 동향 - 수사절차와 증거 관련 대법원 판례를 중심으로 -전승수한국형사판례연구회 · 형사판례연구2012 · 제20권 자백배제법칙의 근거와 임의성의 판단 - 위법배제설의 관점에서 본 형사소송법 제309조의 의미 재검토 -이용식법학연구소 · 외법논집2011 · 제35권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (5건)

The Discovery of Criminal Evidence in South Korea신동운pp. 219-231Expansion and development of the right to counsel in Korea이용식pp. 233-269Development of Security Rights Law since the Codification of the Civil Code of Korea김재형pp. 271-300Korean Green Growth: A Paradigm Shift in Sustainability Policy, and its International Implications이재협, 조홍식, 허성욱pp. 301-333Current Issues in Physician Payment in the United States and the Republic of South KoreaSylvia A.Lawpp. 335-357
원문 보기