본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

전문법칙 적용범위 논의를 위한 몇 가지 고찰 - 기본 개념과 용어, 이론적 근거를 중심으로 -

Several Considerations for Studies of a Range of Application of Hearsay Exclusionary Rule - Focused on Fundamental Concepts, Terms, Theoretical Basis of Hearsay Evidence -

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Fundamental concepts, terms and theoretical basis should be reexamined and be classified to avoid unnecessary complexity of a range of application of hearsay exclusionary rule. Admissibility under Anglo-American law, which is able to be translated permissiveness, connotes element of the Weight of Evidence. This term "Admissibility" is different with "Probative Value" under Criminal Procedure Act of Korea. Therefore, translation of "Admissibility" into "Probative Value" is inappropriate. Trustworthiness which means whether statements evidence is objectively true is a factor of the Weight of Evidence. The concept of this term "Trustworthiness" is same with that of "Trustworthiness" in the term "Circumstantial Guarantee of Trustworthiness". Several terms referring to Trustworthiness should be standardized. Trustworthiness in 'Lack of Trustworthiness', which is the majority theory as theoretical basis of hearsay evidence, needs to be disentangled with trustworthiness as a factor of the Weight of Evidence. Two conceptual elements of the Weight of Evidence are Trustworthiness and "Weight of Evidence in a narrow sense" which is the power confirmed by trustworthy evidences. Those are cleary disentangled and the one is decided after the other. The essential theoretical basis of hearsay evidence is the Danger of Error in Transmitting. The more important thing is that the danger of error in transmitting exists in not only hearsay evidence but also various documents, but rather more danger in documents. In comparison with original evidence which the judge listens directly from stater, inaccuracy of documenets could be occurred in several steps such as for investigator to understand after listening stater, to select the statement, and to compose statements on documents. The danger of error in transmitting of hearsay evidence is followed by two cases, one is nonexperienced person's statements and the other is recorded statements not statements in trial. Making a table with x-axis(record or not) and y-axis(experience or not) makes classification easy between hearsay evidence and re-hearsay evidence.

Abstract

Fundamental concepts, terms and theoretical basis should be reexamined and be classified to avoid unnecessary complexity of a range of application of hearsay exclusionary rule. Admissibility under Anglo-American law, which is able to be translated permissiveness, connotes element of the Weight of Evidence. This term "Admissibility" is different with "Probative Value" under Criminal Procedure Act of Korea. Therefore, translation of "Admissibility" into "Probative Value" is inappropriate. Trustworthiness which means whether statements evidence is objectively true is a factor of the Weight of Evidence. The concept of this term "Trustworthiness" is same with that of "Trustworthiness" in the term "Circumstantial Guarantee of Trustworthiness". Several terms referring to Trustworthiness should be standardized. Trustworthiness in 'Lack of Trustworthiness', which is the majority theory as theoretical basis of hearsay evidence, needs to be disentangled with trustworthiness as a factor of the Weight of Evidence. Two conceptual elements of the Weight of Evidence are Trustworthiness and "Weight of Evidence in a narrow sense" which is the power confirmed by trustworthy evidences. Those are cleary disentangled and the one is decided after the other. The essential theoretical basis of hearsay evidence is the Danger of Error in Transmitting. The more important thing is that the danger of error in transmitting exists in not only hearsay evidence but also various documents, but rather more danger in documents. In comparison with original evidence which the judge listens directly from stater, inaccuracy of documenets could be occurred in several steps such as for investigator to understand after listening stater, to select the statement, and to compose statements on documents. The danger of error in transmitting of hearsay evidence is followed by two cases, one is nonexperienced person's statements and the other is recorded statements not statements in trial. Making a table with x-axis(record or not) and y-axis(experience or not) makes classification easy between hearsay evidence and re-hearsay evidence.

참고문헌 (28)

  1. 권오걸, "형사소송법-이론.판례-" (2010), 형설출판사
  2. 김종구, "형사소송법상 전문법칙의 입법연혁과 영미법의 영향 - 일본 형사소송법상 전문법칙의 제정과정과 관련하여 -", 법학논총, 19(3), pp.69~93 (2012), 법학연구원
  3. 김희균, "미국법 상 전문법칙의 최근 동향 : 공판중심주의의 문제", 형사법연구, 20(2), pp.225~244 (2008), 한국형사법학회
  4. 노명선, "형사소송법" (2013), 성균관대학교 출판부
  5. 미국연방사법센타(Federal Judicial Center), "미국연방형사소송 절차(번역서)" (2006), 검찰
  6. 법원행정처, "법원실무제요(형사Ⅱ)" (2008)
  7. 법원행정처, "형사소송법 개정법률 해설" (2007)
  8. 배종대, "신형사소송법" (2013), 홍문사
  9. 손동권, "형사소송법" (2013), 세창출판사
  10. 사법연수원, "형사실무강의(형사절차법)" (2013)
  11. 서철원, "미국형사소송법" (2005), 법원사
  12. 송광섭, "형사소송법" (2013), 세창출판사
  13. 신동운, "신형사소송법 제4판" (2012), 법문사
  14. 신양균, "형사소송법 제.개정자료집(상)(하)" (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
  15. 신현주, "형사소송법" (2002), 박영사
  16. 심희기, "형사소송법" (2010), 삼영사
  17. 이성기, "당사자주의하에서의 대면권과 전문법칙 - 미국의 크로포드(Crawford) 원칙과 유럽인권 협약상 대면권의 비교를 중심으로 -", 비교형사법연구, 13(1), pp.125~157 (2011), 한국비교형사법학회
  18. 이영란, "한국형사소송법" (2008), 나남
  19. 이완규, "협박 진술 녹음의 전문증거 문제와 진정성 문제의 구별- 대법원 2012. 9. 13. 선고 2012도7461 판결 -", 저스티스, 139, pp.372~401 (2013), 한국법학원
  20. 이완규, "형사소송법연구Ⅰ" (2008), 탐구사
  21. 이재상, "신형사소송법" (2009), 박영사
  22. 정웅석, "공판중심주의에 따른 증거능력의 개념 및 증거판단의 우선순위", 저스티스, (130), pp.242~279 (2012), 한국법학원[DOI]
  23. 주광일, "전문법칙 연구" (1979), 법전출판사
  24. Arthur Best, "Evidence: Examples and Explanations" (2012)
  25. Jerold H. Israel, "Criminal Procedure" (2001)
  26. "Michigan Lawyers Weekly", ~ (2011)
  27. Paul Roberts, "Criminal Evidence" (2010)
  28. Richard May, "Criminal Evidence" (2004)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)