본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

공소장변경의 필요성판단

Determining the need for modification of an indictment

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

This paper is about the judgment of determining the need formodification of an indictment theories and the criteria for the judgment ofdetermining the need for modification for studied. Truth discovery and substantive modification of an indictment theauthority to impose penalties the country, and at the same time to enableproper exercise of the accused can guarantee defense of the rightsinstitution. Thus, the court can modification of modification of reason modificationof an indictment occurs, the public prosecutor require. The public prosecutormust apply for modification of an indictment. An indictment should be changed in any case for the opposition to havea different theory. Most importantly, the public prosecutor receive anindictment want to judge described the defendant appeals the fact itself. In this sense, the theory is reasonable to mention the fact. SupremeCourt follows this theory. In fact, according to the change of these claims,and the fact that the defendant's defense of the changes result in asubstantial penalty if the concern is that should the need modification of an indictment.

Abstract

This paper is about the judgment of determining the need formodification of an indictment theories and the criteria for the judgment ofdetermining the need for modification for studied. Truth discovery and substantive modification of an indictment theauthority to impose penalties the country, and at the same time to enableproper exercise of the accused can guarantee defense of the rightsinstitution. Thus, the court can modification of modification of reason modificationof an indictment occurs, the public prosecutor require. The public prosecutormust apply for modification of an indictment. An indictment should be changed in any case for the opposition to havea different theory. Most importantly, the public prosecutor receive anindictment want to judge described the defendant appeals the fact itself. In this sense, the theory is reasonable to mention the fact. SupremeCourt follows this theory. In fact, according to the change of these claims,and the fact that the defendant's defense of the changes result in asubstantial penalty if the concern is that should the need modification of an indictment.

참고문헌 (21)

  1. 백형구, "알기쉬운 형사소송법" (2005), 박영사
  2. 송광섭, "형사소송법" (2010), 형설출판사
  3. 신동운, "신형사소송법" (2008), 법문사
  4. 신양균, "형사소송법" (2000), 법문사
  5. 신현주, "형사소송법" (2002), 박영사
  6. 이영란, "한국형사소송법" (2008), 나남신서
  7. 이재상, "형사소송법" (2012), 박영사
  8. 임동규, "형사소송법" (2012), 법문사
  9. 진계호, "형사소송법" (2004), 형설출판사
  10. 차용석, "형사소송법" (2008), 21세기사
  11. 김형준, "공소장변경 필요성의 판단기준", 고시연구 (2002)
  12. 오경식, "공소장변경과 법원의 심판범위", 형사판례연구, (11) (2006), 형사판례연구회
  13. 이호중, "형사판례연구, 제8권" (2000), 박영사
  14. 임종희, "공소장변경의 필요성 및 한계", 조선대 법학논총 (2003), 조선대학교
  15. 최병각, "형사판례의 연구: 지송 이재상교수 화갑기념논문집 Ⅱ" (2004), 박영사
  16. 白取祐司, "刑事訴訟法" (2008), 日本評論社
  17. 福井 厚, "刑事訴訟法講義" (2007), 法律文化社
  18. 寺崎嘉博, "刑事訴訟法の爭點" (2002), 有斐閣
  19. 三井 誠, "刑事手續法Ⅱ" (2003), 有斐閣
  20. 田口守一, "刑事訴訟法" (2006), 弘文堂
  21. 池田 修, "刑事訴訟法講義" (2006), 東京大學出版會

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)