의식불명자에 대한 강제채혈의 비교법적 연구- 대법원 2012.11.15. 선고2011도15258 판결과 일본의 학설 · 판례와의 비교를중심으로 -
The Compulsory Sampling of Blood : A Comparative Study
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
South Korean criminal justice system has established the exclusionary rule since 2007. A number of convictions have been quashed on the basis of this rule. Such circumstances lead to a change in practice, in particular, criminal investigation. One significant example of the exclusionary rule is a judgment that excluded evidence, blood alcohol content, which was obtained without consent or a warrant even though the suspect was under unconsciousness. Under these circumstances, criminal investigators are wondering how they can obtain legally appropriate evidence and what criminal procedure their operations are based on. 79) This study, firstly, has explored the compulsory sampling of blood. Then, based on a judgment by the Supreme Court, I have examined whether a post-warrant can be an alternative. To analyse current situations in South Korea, a comparative research method has been mainly employed. Japanese system of criminal justice can be a significant comparator because it has a similar system.
Abstract
South Korean criminal justice system has established the exclusionary rule since 2007. A number of convictions have been quashed on the basis of this rule. Such circumstances lead to a change in practice, in particular, criminal investigation. One significant example of the exclusionary rule is a judgment that excluded evidence, blood alcohol content, which was obtained without consent or a warrant even though the suspect was under unconsciousness. Under these circumstances, criminal investigators are wondering how they can obtain legally appropriate evidence and what criminal procedure their operations are based on. 79) This study, firstly, has explored the compulsory sampling of blood. Then, based on a judgment by the Supreme Court, I have examined whether a post-warrant can be an alternative. To analyse current situations in South Korea, a comparative research method has been mainly employed. Japanese system of criminal justice can be a significant comparator because it has a similar system.
참고문헌 (35)
- 권기병, "교통사고수사론(Ⅰ)" (2012), 경찰대학
- 배종대, "신형사소송법(제5판)" (2013), 홍문사
- 신동운, "신형사소송법 제3판" (2011), 법문사
- 이은모, (2012), 박영사
- 임동규, "형사소송법" (2012), 법문사
- 히라라기토키오, "일본형사소송법" (2012), 박영사
- 幕田英雄, "實例中心搜査法解說" (2012), 東京法令出版
- 井上正仁, "刑事手續における体液の强制採取", 法學協會百周年記念論文集, 2 (1983), 有斐閣
- 川出敏裕, "强制處分の効力について", 三井誠先生古稀祝賀論文集 (2012), 有斐閣
- 古田佑紀, "任意搜査の限界101問" (2003), 立花書房
- 김경수, "교통사고현장에서 의식불명된 자에 대한 강제채혈의 증거능력 -대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2009도2109 판결-", 법학논총, 18(3), pp.65~86 (2011), 법학연구원
- 김하중, "혈액수집과 적법절차", 형사법의 신동향, (35), pp.5~51 (2012), 대검찰청
- 김하중, "수사상 강제채혈의 법적 문제점과 해결방안 -음주운전자에 대한 강제채혈과 위법수집증거 배제법칙을 중심으로-", 법조, 57(9), pp.5~46 (2008), 법조협회
- 김형준, "수사기관의 혈액압수", 고시연구, (359) (2004)
- 박강우, "무영장무동의 채혈의 적법성에 관한 각국 판례의 동향", 형사정책연구, 16(4), pp.133~166 (2005), 한국형사정책연구원
- 손동권, "혈액의 채취·압수·감정의 적법성 여부와 증거평가의 문제", 고려법학, (62), pp.329~355 (2011), 법학연구원
- 윤소현, "의식상실한 음주운전 피의자에 대한 채혈", 형사법의 신동향, (31), pp.88~145 (2011), 대검찰청
- 이상돈, "혈액압수와 정보지배권", 저스티스, 34(4) (2001)
- 이주원, "개정 도로교통법상 음주운전죄의 소송법적 문제점 고찰", 형사법의 신동향, (36), pp.105~139 (2012), 대검찰청
- 조기영, "피의자의 동의 없는 혈액 압수의 적법성", 형사법연구, 23(2), pp.261~284 (2011), 한국형사법학회
- 최준혁, "영장에 의하지 아니하는 강제처분", 경찰법연구, 9(2), pp.57~87 (2011), 한국경찰법학회
- 今崎幸彦, "逮捕に伴う搜索差押え（１）－逮捕の現場, In 刑事訴訟法判例百選" (2005), 有斐閣
- 大澤裕, "强制採尿と强制採尿令狀による採尿場所への連行", 法學敎室, (316) (2007), 有斐閣
- 酒卷匡, "刑事手續法の諸問題 人の身体を對象とする强制處分", 法學敎室, (296) (2005), 有斐閣
- 酒卷匡, "刑事手續法の諸問題逮捕に伴う令狀を必要としない强制處分", 法學敎室, (297) (2005), 有斐閣
- 酒卷匡, "刑事訴訟法を學ぶ 第8回 搜査手續（７） 檢証․鑑定․体液の採取", 法學敎室, (364) (2011), 有斐閣
- 松尾浩也, "座談會 團藤重光 先生を偲んで", 論究ジュリスト, (4) (2012), 有斐閣
- "대법원 1987. 6. 23. 87도705 판결", ~ (1987)
- "대법원 1999. 9. 3. 선고 98도968 판결", ~ (1999)
- "대법원 2007. 11. 15. 선고 2007도3061 판결", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2009도2109 판결", ~ (2011)
- "대법원 2012. 11. 15. 선고 2011도15258 판결", ~ (2012)
- "광주지방법원 2009. 2. 18. 선고 2008노2702 판결", ~ (2009)
- "最高裁昭和55年10月23日第一小法廷決定(昭和54年（あ）第429号：覺せい劑取締法違反 被告事件)", ~ (1980)
- "最高裁平成 8年 1月 29日第三小法廷決定(平成５年（あ）第518号：凶器準備集合, 傷害被告事件)", ~ (1996)