본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

법원의 공소장변경요구제도에 대한 비판적 고찰

A Critical Study on Change requirement system of written arraignment by the court

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Though Indictment Modification System is an element of adversary system, Indictment ModificationRequirement System is an element of inquisitional system prepared to acknowledge authoritative intervention ofthe court in order to supplement Indictment Modification System. To discuss the legal nature of the system, itshould be decided by Indictment Modification Requirement System itself, and unlike existing theories orprecedents, Indictment Modification Requirement should be considered as a right and duty of the court at thesame time through reviewing revision object of the Criminal Procedure Law which introduced the system, andcomparing the regulations of Japanese Criminal Procedure Law. In the view of Indictment Modification Requirement System as a right and duty of the court, if the courtrequired for modification of an indictment within the recognition range of criminal fact and identity, therequired criminal fact becomes the substantive subject of judgment, and the defense right of the accused isconsidered to be exercised; therefore, considering if there is a substantive disadvantage or not in exercisingdefense right of the accused, it is possible for the court to make a decision on the criminal fact that requiredmodification of indictment. In respect of adversary system, as it is true that indictment modification requirement of court is an exceptionof adversary system, it is necessary to be circumspect in indictment modification requirement of court respectingthe chance of application for indictment modification of prosecutor during the trial examination; however, todeclare innocent on the criminal fact in a situation of no application for indictment modification, even if thereis admissible criminal fact, with a passive demeanor that regards indictment modification requirement asdiscretion of court, gives the accused an unfair profit, and results in against finding of substantial truth. Thus, it is expected to contribute the requirement system to perform appropriate role in accordance with thepurpose of criminal suit, which is finding substantial truth according to reasonable procedure by reviewing thelegal nature and effect of Indictment Modification Requirement System of court critically.

Abstract

Though Indictment Modification System is an element of adversary system, Indictment ModificationRequirement System is an element of inquisitional system prepared to acknowledge authoritative intervention ofthe court in order to supplement Indictment Modification System. To discuss the legal nature of the system, itshould be decided by Indictment Modification Requirement System itself, and unlike existing theories orprecedents, Indictment Modification Requirement should be considered as a right and duty of the court at thesame time through reviewing revision object of the Criminal Procedure Law which introduced the system, andcomparing the regulations of Japanese Criminal Procedure Law. In the view of Indictment Modification Requirement System as a right and duty of the court, if the courtrequired for modification of an indictment within the recognition range of criminal fact and identity, therequired criminal fact becomes the substantive subject of judgment, and the defense right of the accused isconsidered to be exercised; therefore, considering if there is a substantive disadvantage or not in exercisingdefense right of the accused, it is possible for the court to make a decision on the criminal fact that requiredmodification of indictment. In respect of adversary system, as it is true that indictment modification requirement of court is an exceptionof adversary system, it is necessary to be circumspect in indictment modification requirement of court respectingthe chance of application for indictment modification of prosecutor during the trial examination; however, todeclare innocent on the criminal fact in a situation of no application for indictment modification, even if thereis admissible criminal fact, with a passive demeanor that regards indictment modification requirement asdiscretion of court, gives the accused an unfair profit, and results in against finding of substantial truth. Thus, it is expected to contribute the requirement system to perform appropriate role in accordance with thepurpose of criminal suit, which is finding substantial truth according to reasonable procedure by reviewing thelegal nature and effect of Indictment Modification Requirement System of court critically.

참고문헌 (38)

  1. 권오걸, "형사소송법-이론.판례-" (2010), 형설출판사
  2. 김재환, "형사소송법" (2013), 법문사
  3. 김현수, "형사소송법 강의" (2009), 제주대 출판부
  4. 노명선, "형사소송법" (2013), 성균관대학교 출판부
  5. 박상열, "형사소송법" (2009), 형설출판사
  6. 배종대, "신형사소송법 제3판" (2011), 홍문사
  7. 백형구, "형사소송법" (2012), 법원사
  8. 손동권, "형사소송법 개정신판" (2010), 세창출판사
  9. 송광섭, "형사소송법" (2012), 형설출판사
  10. 신동운, "신형사소송법" (2014), 法文社
  11. 신동운, "입문 일본형사수속법" (2003), 법문사
  12. 신양균, "형사소송법" (2010), 화산미디어
  13. 신현주, "형사소송법" (1999), 박영사
  14. 이영란, "한국형사소송법" (2008), 나남
  15. 이은모, (2014), 박영사
  16. 이재상, "형사소송법" (2012), 박영사
  17. 임동규, "형사소송법" (2013), 법문사
  18. 정영석, "형사소송법" (1996), 법문사
  19. 정웅석, "형사소송법" (2014), 大明出版社
  20. 조균석, "일본 형사소송법" (2012), 박영사
  21. 진계호, "형사소송법" (2004), 형설출판사
  22. 차용석, "형사소송법" (2008), 21세기사
  23. 최영승, "형사소송법" (2013), 피앤씨미디어
  24. 법무부, "일본 형사소송법⋅규칙", ~ (2009)
  25. , 2008
  26. 형사소송법 제⋅개정자료집(상), "한국형사정책연구원", ~ (2009)
  27. 김기두, "개정 형소법의 의의와 문제점", 고시계, 18(5) (1973), 고시계사
  28. 김태계, "법원의 공소장변경 요구에 관한 고찰", 법학연구, 16(1) (2008), 경상대 법학연구소
  29. 김태계, "법원의 공소장변경요구", 고시계, 54(4) (2009), 고시계사
  30. 김희옥, "공소장의 변경", 사법행정, 통권 : 293 (1985), 한국사법행정학회
  31. 노종상, "형사소송법 298조 2항(법원의 공소장변경요구)에 관한 제문제", 사법논집, 9 (1978), 법원행정처
  32. 백형구, "공소장변경요구의 예외적 의무성", 판례월보, (195) (1986), 판례월보사
  33. 오경식, "형사판례연구 제11권" (2003), 한국형사판례연구회
  34. 오영근, "법원의 공소장변경요구와 항소심에서의 공소장변경", 고시연구, 24(11) (1997), 고시연구사
  35. 이호중, "형사판례연구 제8권" (2000), 한국형사판례연구회
  36. 장우건, "공소장변경의 요부와 피고인의 방어권행사와 보장", 대법원판례해설, (10) (1989), 법원행정처
  37. 정동욱, "형사판례연구 제3권" (1996), 한국형사판례연구회
  38. 차용석, "공소장변경요구", 고시연구, 24(5) (1997), 고시연구사

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (5건)