횡령뇌물죄 궐석재판의 입증기준에 관한 연구

Abstract

In 2018, the criminal procedure law of the people’s Republic of China [hereinafter referred to as the criminal procedure law.] It has been revised to add the relevant contents of the trial in absentia system, which is of great significance to promote the judicial organs to actively perform their duties, improve litigation efficiency, enrich the means of punishing crimes, and promote the international pursuit of anti-corruption. However, there are still doubts about the standard of proof for the trial in absentia of corruption and bribery crimes. The standard of proof stipulated in article 291 of the criminal procedure law is consistent with the standard of proof for ordinary criminal crimes, so as to achieve “the facts of the crime have been found out and the evidence is reliable and sufficient”. Its rationality lies in that it conforms to the valu e basis of the trial by defau lt system, conforms to the particu larity of facts, and can achieve better coordination between systems. However, due to the particularity of case litigation structure and evidence form, the applicable evidence rules, proof standards and proof methods need to be adjusted appropriately on the basis of the rules of ordinary criminal procedure law. Due to the particularity of the proof of corruption and bribery cases, the proof standard stipulated in the current law needs to be further refined, understood and grasped. Starting from combing the particularity of criminal trial by default of corruption and bribery crime, this paper demonstrates the rationality of the standard of proof of trial by default, and expounds the understanding and Realization of the standard of proof. In the context of Default Trial of corruption and bribery crime, relying on its special evidence system, relying on the trial environment in which the defendant does not appear in court, combined with the typed analysis of evidence reasoning logic and the rational application of empirical rules, this paper constructs a proof mechanism guided by indirect evidence proof, and then confirmed with direct evidence, so as to realize the proof of final case facts.