개정 형사소송법과 자백의 증거능력
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 정준섭 | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-02-22T11:13:31Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2007-10 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1598-558X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.sookmyung.ac.kr/handle/2020.sw.sookmyung/8338 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The criminal procedure law stipulates for limit of admissibility of the confession through article 309 as the rules of the criminal evidence law. It is regulating that the confession which enables to doubt the voluntariness may not be admitted as evidence of guilt. Article 309 is provided the example of cases in which enables to doubt the voluntariness by illegal reasons such as the torture, violence, intimidation, etc. It is a general attitude that the jurists understand the confession which is taken by illegal ways as problems of Article 309. However, Article 308 clause 2 which stipulate the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence is established newly by the reform of criminal procedure law 2007. Under the criminal procedure law, the confession by the torture, violence, intimidation is illegally obtained evidence and has to judge whether admissibility of evidence is recognized or not by article 308-2. In this point of view, in a case where a confession obtained from such an legal search but be doubtful voluntariness has to be interpreted regulation as denying admissibility of evidence according to article 309. Therefore, under the existing criminal procedure law regulating exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence, a traditional exclusionary theory which has claimed as a source of theory about the admissibility of the confession is not reasonable anymore. Furthermore, under the reform of criminal procedure law, it should be grasped that illegal ways in article 309 is only reconfirmation exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence regulated in Article 308-2. In this thesis, I propose that it is necessary to reconstruct the criminal procedure Law Article 308-2 and Article 309 for harmonious interpretation in Article 12 Clause 7 of Constitution. | - |
dc.format.extent | 28 | - |
dc.language | 한국어 | - |
dc.language.iso | KOR | - |
dc.publisher | 중앙법학회 | - |
dc.title | 개정 형사소송법과 자백의 증거능력 | - |
dc.title.alternative | THE REFORM OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONFESSION | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.publisher.location | 대한민국 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.21759/caulaw.2007.9.3.165 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | 중앙법학, v.9, no.3, pp 165 - 192 | - |
dc.citation.title | 중앙법학 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 9 | - |
dc.citation.number | 3 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 165 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 192 | - |
dc.identifier.kciid | ART001092193 | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | kci | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 자백(confession) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 자백의 임의성(voluntariness of confession) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 자백배제법칙(confession rule) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 자백의 증거능력제한(limiting the admissibility of the confession) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 위법수집증거배제법칙(exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 자백(confession) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 자백의 임의성(voluntariness of confession) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 자백배제법칙(confession rule) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 자백의 증거능력제한(limiting the admissibility of the confession) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 위법수집증거배제법칙(exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence) | - |
dc.identifier.url | https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE06591824 | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
Sookmyung Women's University. Cheongpa-ro 47-gil 100 (Cheongpa-dong 2ga), Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 04310, Korea02-710-9127
Copyright©Sookmyung Women's University. All Rights Reserved.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.