특신상태의 의의와 판단기준
Criteria and the meaning of special guarantees of trustworthiness
0
조회
0
다운로드
17
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In the domain of hearsay evidence, "special guarantees of trustworthiness" now occupy a position as a weight requirement by the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2007, and the Supreme Court through the judgment of the recent in order to recognize the admissibility of evidence was required to determine the more stringent requirements of special guarantees of trustworthiness. Despite a major certification requirements for admissibility of hearsay evidence, special guarantees of trustworthiness have not been discussed much in the field of the law of evidence so far, but it was going to appear as important themes because of the Supreme Court and the Code of Criminal Procedure of these amendments, and you should have a lively discussion of this special guarantees of trustworthiness. The court has taken the position that should be judged individually according to case specific about the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, but it has applied inconsistent criteria or misunderstand the meaning of special guarantees of trustworthiness case-by-case so far. I think that the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness is necessary to be distinguished clearly with a matter of probative value, and that it is necessary to be judged by the course of statement or the external situation of statement than the credibility of the statement or circle the contents of the original statement as much as possible for avoiding confusion with the problem of determining probative value. And special guarantees of trustworthiness should be distinguished also voluntariness of the statements, and it must be considerated whether the statement was originally carried out in the presence of law enforcement agencies or not, in addition to whether the statement was done to attend the court or not.
Abstract
In the domain of hearsay evidence, "special guarantees of trustworthiness" now occupy a position as a weight requirement by the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2007, and the Supreme Court through the judgment of the recent in order to recognize the admissibility of evidence was required to determine the more stringent requirements of special guarantees of trustworthiness. Despite a major certification requirements for admissibility of hearsay evidence, special guarantees of trustworthiness have not been discussed much in the field of the law of evidence so far, but it was going to appear as important themes because of the Supreme Court and the Code of Criminal Procedure of these amendments, and you should have a lively discussion of this special guarantees of trustworthiness. The court has taken the position that should be judged individually according to case specific about the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, but it has applied inconsistent criteria or misunderstand the meaning of special guarantees of trustworthiness case-by-case so far. I think that the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness is necessary to be distinguished clearly with a matter of probative value, and that it is necessary to be judged by the course of statement or the external situation of statement than the credibility of the statement or circle the contents of the original statement as much as possible for avoiding confusion with the problem of determining probative value. And special guarantees of trustworthiness should be distinguished also voluntariness of the statements, and it must be considerated whether the statement was originally carried out in the presence of law enforcement agencies or not, in addition to whether the statement was done to attend the court or not.
참고문헌 (32)
- 권오걸, "형사소송법-이론.판례-" (2010), 형설출판사
- 노명선, "형사소송법" (2009), 성균관대학교 출판부
- 배종대, "신형사소송법 제3판" (2011), 홍문사
- 백형구, "주석 형사소송법(Ⅲ)" (2009), 한국사법행정연구원
- 법원행정처, "법원실무제요 형사(Ⅱ)" (2008)
- 손동권, "형사소송법 개정신판" (2010), 세창출판사
- 송광섭, "형사소송법" (2010), 형설출판사
- 신동운, "신형사소송법 제3판" (2011), 법문사
- 신양균, "신판 형사소송법" (2009), 화산미디어
- 심희기, "쟁점강의 형사소송법" (2009), 삼영사
- 이완규, "형사소송법연구Ⅰ" (2007), 탐구사
- 이은모, (2011), 박영사
- 이재상, "형사소송법" (2012), 박영사
- 임동규, "형사소송법" (2012), 법문사
- 정웅석, "형사소송법" (2011), 大明出版社
- 권오병, "소위 ‘특신상태’와 증거능력에 관한 문제", 법조, 13(2) (1964), 법조협회
- 김희균, "크로포드 사건 : 형사피고인의 대질심문권의 재발견", 법조, 54(7), pp.145~170 (2005), 법조협회
- 서태경, "改正 刑事訴訟法 第313條 第1項에 대한 小考", 한양법학, (25), pp.255~278 (2009), 한양법학회
- 신이철, "검사작성의 피고인이 된 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 인정요건 - 전문법칙과의 관계에서 -", 동아법학, (49), pp.171~211 (2010), 법학연구소
- 신이철, "참고인 진술조서의 증거능력 인정요건 - 특히 전문법칙과의 관계에서-", 동아법학, (48), pp.363~395 (2010), 법학연구소
- 안성수, "자백 배제의 원칙과 특신성", 저스티스, (101), pp.168~204 (2007), 한국법학원
- 양동철, "개정 형사소송법상의 참고인 진술의 증거능력- 참고인진술조서 및 진술서를 중심으로-", 법조, 58(2), pp.58~109 (2009), 법조협회
- 유해용, "공판중심주의와 전문법칙", 저스티스, (98), pp.185~222 (2007), 한국법학원
- 이승호, "개정 형사소송법상 전문증거(傳聞證據)의 증거가치에 대한 검토", 형사법연구, 19(4), pp.199~224 (2007), 한국형사법학회
- 이은모, "개정형사소송법상의 증거법칙에 대한 검토", 법학논총, 24(2) (2007), 법학연구소
- 이은모, "자백배제법칙의 근거와 임의성의 입증", 법학논총, 24(2) (2007), 법학연구소
- 임웅, "개정 형사소송법 제316조에 대한 고찰 - 조사자 증언제도를 중심으로-", 성균관법학, 23(2), pp.211~235 (2011), 법학연구소
- 정승환, "검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력과 특신상태", 형사법연구, 19(3-하), pp.679~696 (2007), 한국형사법학회
- 정진연, "형사증거법상 보충적 규정인 제314조에 대한 소고", 법학연구, (37), pp.237~263 (2010), 한국법학회
- 정한중, "다른 사건 공판조서의 증거능력", 외법논집, 33(1), pp.511~546 (2009), 법학연구소
- 조국, "검사작성 피의자신문조서와 영상녹화물의 증거능력", 저스티스, (107), pp.171~192 (2008), 한국법학원
- 주용기, "검사 작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력", 한양법학, 18 (2005), 한양법학회
