위증죄 성립에 있어 증언거부권 미고지의 성격과 의미
The Nature and Meaning of Non-notification of Right to Silence in Constituting Perjury
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Korean supreme court in the en banc decision of 2008do942 newly set up the relationship between perjury and right to refuse to testify. Korean supreme court decided that it should be considered whether right to refuse to testify is violated by considering total circumstances even when a judge did not notify right to refuse to testify. In other words, perjury does not stand when it were an obstacle to exercise right to refuse to testify. The korean supreme court’s decision shows the unique structure of connecting right to refuse to testify with the subject requirement of crime of perjury. Many korean scholars understand the court’s decision en banc so much formally. Following their views, perjury does not stand if the mere fact of non-notification of right to refuse to testify may deny validity of an oath of witness. In contrast, just like the en banc decision of korean supreme court of 2008도942, a substantive approach raises its voice that right to refuse to testify in establishing perjury actually means prohibition of coercion of testimony. The most substantive views contents that, just like the past decisions of korean supreme court, the possibility of excuse should be taken into consideration based on the category of ‘a possibility of expectation to legal act’in case of non-notification of right to refuse to testify. In short, this paper would like to pay attention to the viewpoint that substance of right to refuse testify should be taken seriously, in relation with establishment of perjury.
Abstract
Korean supreme court in the en banc decision of 2008do942 newly set up the relationship between perjury and right to refuse to testify. Korean supreme court decided that it should be considered whether right to refuse to testify is violated by considering total circumstances even when a judge did not notify right to refuse to testify. In other words, perjury does not stand when it were an obstacle to exercise right to refuse to testify. The korean supreme court’s decision shows the unique structure of connecting right to refuse to testify with the subject requirement of crime of perjury. Many korean scholars understand the court’s decision en banc so much formally. Following their views, perjury does not stand if the mere fact of non-notification of right to refuse to testify may deny validity of an oath of witness. In contrast, just like the en banc decision of korean supreme court of 2008도942, a substantive approach raises its voice that right to refuse to testify in establishing perjury actually means prohibition of coercion of testimony. The most substantive views contents that, just like the past decisions of korean supreme court, the possibility of excuse should be taken into consideration based on the category of ‘a possibility of expectation to legal act’in case of non-notification of right to refuse to testify. In short, this paper would like to pay attention to the viewpoint that substance of right to refuse testify should be taken seriously, in relation with establishment of perjury.
참고문헌 (42)
- 김성돈, "형법총론 제2판" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 배종대, "신형사소송법 제5판" (2013), 홍문사
- 신동운, "신형사소송법 제5판" (2014), 법문사
- 신동운, "신판례백선 : 형법총론 제2판" (2011), 경세원
- 신동운, "형법총론 제6판" (2011), 법문사
- 이재상, "신형사소송법 제2판" (2010)
- 권오걸, "증언거부권의 불고지와 위증죄", 형사법연구, 22(3), pp.373~388 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 권창국, "형사재판의 제문제 제6권, 고현철 대법관 퇴임기념 논문집" (2009)
- 오영근, "증언거부권의 불고지와 위증죄의 성립여부", 고시계, 55(5) (2010)
- 이희경, "증언절차의 소송법 규정위반과 위증죄의 성립여부", 형사판례연구, 19, pp.468~508 (2011), 한국형사판례연구회
- 정영일, "증언거부권과 위증죄 성부의 관계에 관한 판례연구", 형사법연구, 23(1), pp.209~228 (2011), 한국형사법학회
- 최병각, "위증죄의 성립범위와 판단방법", 동아법학, (60), pp.65~98 (2013), 법학연구소
- 하태훈, "위증죄의 주체", 고시연구, 24(3) (1997)
- Ronald Jay Allen, "Comprehensive Criminal Procedure (3rd eds)" (2011)
- "Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398", ~ (1998)
- "Cargill v. United States, 381 F.2d 849 (10th Cir)", ~ (1967)
- "Clickstein v. United Staes, 222 U.S. 139", ~ (1911)
- "Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547", ~ (1892)
- "Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452", ~ (1994)
- "Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610", ~ (1976)
- "Griffin v. Cal., 380 U.S. 609", ~ (1965)
- "Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586", ~ (2009)
- "Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201", ~ (1964)
- "Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433", ~ (1974)
- "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436", ~ (1966)
- "New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649", ~ (1984)
- "Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291", ~ (1980)
- "Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367", ~ (1951)
- "Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174", ~ (2013)
- "United States v. Scott, 47 F.3d 904 (7th Cir)", ~ (1995)
- "United States v. Gabriele, 63 F.3d 61 (1st Cir)", ~ (1995)
- "United States v. Al-Muqsit, 191 F.3d 928 (8th Cir)", ~ (1999)
- "United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115", ~ (1980)
- "United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328 (4th Cir)", ~ (2008)
- "United States v. Smart, 501 F.3d 862 (8th Cir)", ~ (2007)
- "United States v. Baskin, 424 F.3d 1 (1st Cir)", ~ (2005)
- "United States v. Doss, 563 F.2d 265 (6th Cir)", ~ (1977)
- "United States v. Lee, 972 F. Supp. 1330 (D. Kan)", ~ (1997)
- "United States v. Thomas, 612 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir)", ~ (2010)
- "United States v. Weiss, 752 F. 2d 777 (2d Cir)" (1985)
- "United States v. Wilmore, 381 F.3d 868 (9th Cir)", ~ (2004)
- "United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564", ~ (1976)