지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
It has been over 20 years now since Park, Jong-Chul, who was recalled due to the quality of his reference, died from water torture in 1987. We could say that the police’s or the prosecution’s harsh treatment of suspects in the investigation procedures it conducts is on the decrease. It is doubtful, though, that such cruel act has been totally uprooted. As another incident in which the suspect died due to the prosecution’s torture of him in the investigation procedure that was carried out occurred in October 2002, in 2003, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took cognizance of the police’s torture of suspects and recommended the prosecution of policemen who are found guilty of such cruel act, as reflected in Article 125 of the Korean Criminal Law. The gravity of torture of a suspect lies in the fact that it is not an eventuality but a structural problem in the prosecution.
The Constitution of the Republic of Korea has guaranteed the human dignity and the fundamental human rights of individuals. The said constitution stipulates the principles of the presumption of innocence, lawful procedures, the prohibition of torture and the compulsion of a suspect to testify against himself, and the denial of evidences obtained through torture, among others. The constitution enactment authority’s view of the human rights it must safeguard has been reflected in these clauses of the constitution, which had been elevated to the principles on which the Criminal Procedure Act is based.
Article 125 of the Korean Criminal Law states: “A person who, in performing or assisting in activities concerning the judgment, prosecution, and arrest of an individual, and other functions involving human restraint, commits an act of violence or cruelty against a criminal suspect or against another person while carrying out his duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years and by the suspension of his rights for not more than ten (10) years.” This provision punishes the police or the prosecution for any form of harsh treatment of a suspect it may carry out in the course of an investigation procedure it conducts.
In addition, Article 124, clause 1 stipulates: “If a person who performs or assists in activities concerning the judgment, prosecution, and arrest of an individual, and other functions involving human restraint, arrests or imprisons another in a way that involves the abuse of his official authority, he shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven (7) years and by suspension of his rights for not more than ten (10) years.” This provision punishes the police or the prosecution for any unlawful arrest or confinement it may commit.
To uproot the torture of suspects in investigation procedures, the UN General Assembly adopted “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” on December 10, 1984. On January 9, 1995, Korea signed such document, which took effect on February 8. Korea, however, has not yet adopted the “Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.”
In Korea’s amended Criminal Procedure Act (2007), various measures to prevent and control the torture of suspects in investigation procedures have been stipulated. The cases involving the torture of suspects in investigation procedures are expected to decrease since the new Criminal Procedure Act has been in effect since January 1, 2008. It is not realistic, however, to expect that the harsh treatment of suspects in investigation procedures will be completely overcome simply by such amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act. To completely prevent the commission of cruel acts against suspects in investigation procedures, efforts should be made to ensure that the prosecution and the police are always conscious of human rights. Moreover, effective related legislation based on the Constitution is needed, in addition to the international convention.
The UN Convention against Torture Commission requested Korea to define its concept of torture clearly, to expand the scope of the punishments it imposes for torture, and to complement Article 125 of its highest criminal law, among others. Korea unfortunately suffers infamy for being one of the countries in modern history that commit considerable judicial murder.
One of the reasons for the aforementioned UN commission’s request is that the article of Korea’s highest criminal law that punishes the prosecution or the police for torturing suspects simply requires a warrant of arrest before a person can be arrested and insufficiently punishes prosecutors who treat suspects unjustly by distorting the facts or the law in an investigation procedure. Further, the article of the said law that punishes unlawful arrest or confinement does not apply at all times. There is also no article that punishes a judge for coming up with a decision regarding whether to issue a warrant for a suspect’s arrest by distorting the facts or the law.
The reform of the criminal justice system in Korea began on June 11, 2007. It is believed that this is a good opportunity to complement the articles mentioned above. To punish a prosecutor, policeman, or judge for deliberately distorting the facts or the law to effect the arrest or conviction of a suspect, as in China and Germany, it is hoped that Korea’s highest criminal law will be made to include a corresponding article. This will contribute much to preventing and controlling the harsh treatment of suspects in investigation procedures in the country.
The Constitution of the Republic of Korea has guaranteed the human dignity and the fundamental human rights of individuals. The said constitution stipulates the principles of the presumption of innocence, lawful procedures, the prohibition of torture and the compulsion of a suspect to testify against himself, and the denial of evidences obtained through torture, among others. The constitution enactment authority’s view of the human rights it must safeguard has been reflected in these clauses of the constitution, which had been elevated to the principles on which the Criminal Procedure Act is based.
Article 125 of the Korean Criminal Law states: “A person who, in performing or assisting in activities concerning the judgment, prosecution, and arrest of an individual, and other functions involving human restraint, commits an act of violence or cruelty against a criminal suspect or against another person while carrying out his duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years and by the suspension of his rights for not more than ten (10) years.” This provision punishes the police or the prosecution for any form of harsh treatment of a suspect it may carry out in the course of an investigation procedure it conducts.
In addition, Article 124, clause 1 stipulates: “If a person who performs or assists in activities concerning the judgment, prosecution, and arrest of an individual, and other functions involving human restraint, arrests or imprisons another in a way that involves the abuse of his official authority, he shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven (7) years and by suspension of his rights for not more than ten (10) years.” This provision punishes the police or the prosecution for any unlawful arrest or confinement it may commit.
To uproot the torture of suspects in investigation procedures, the UN General Assembly adopted “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” on December 10, 1984. On January 9, 1995, Korea signed such document, which took effect on February 8. Korea, however, has not yet adopted the “Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.”
In Korea’s amended Criminal Procedure Act (2007), various measures to prevent and control the torture of suspects in investigation procedures have been stipulated. The cases involving the torture of suspects in investigation procedures are expected to decrease since the new Criminal Procedure Act has been in effect since January 1, 2008. It is not realistic, however, to expect that the harsh treatment of suspects in investigation procedures will be completely overcome simply by such amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act. To completely prevent the commission of cruel acts against suspects in investigation procedures, efforts should be made to ensure that the prosecution and the police are always conscious of human rights. Moreover, effective related legislation based on the Constitution is needed, in addition to the international convention.
The UN Convention against Torture Commission requested Korea to define its concept of torture clearly, to expand the scope of the punishments it imposes for torture, and to complement Article 125 of its highest criminal law, among others. Korea unfortunately suffers infamy for being one of the countries in modern history that commit considerable judicial murder.
One of the reasons for the aforementioned UN commission’s request is that the article of Korea’s highest criminal law that punishes the prosecution or the police for torturing suspects simply requires a warrant of arrest before a person can be arrested and insufficiently punishes prosecutors who treat suspects unjustly by distorting the facts or the law in an investigation procedure. Further, the article of the said law that punishes unlawful arrest or confinement does not apply at all times. There is also no article that punishes a judge for coming up with a decision regarding whether to issue a warrant for a suspect’s arrest by distorting the facts or the law.
The reform of the criminal justice system in Korea began on June 11, 2007. It is believed that this is a good opportunity to complement the articles mentioned above. To punish a prosecutor, policeman, or judge for deliberately distorting the facts or the law to effect the arrest or conviction of a suspect, as in China and Germany, it is hoped that Korea’s highest criminal law will be made to include a corresponding article. This will contribute much to preventing and controlling the harsh treatment of suspects in investigation procedures in the country.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 한국에서 헌법, 형사실체법 및 국제조약에 의한 가혹행위금지
Ⅲ. 형사소송법상 가혹행위의 예방과 억제
Ⅳ. 결론과 법왜곡죄의 도입
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (5)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (5)
-
대법원 1989. 11. 14. 선고 88도1251 판결
가. 항소심판결선고후 그 적용법률인 구 집회및시위에관한법률 제14조 제4항, 제3조 제1항 제4호가 1989.3.29. 법률 제4095호의 같은 법 제19조 제4항, 제5조 제1항으로 전면개정되었다면 결과적으로 항소심판결은 법령의 적용을 잘못한 것이 되어 그대로
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2005. 5. 26. 선고 2005도945 판결
검사 및 검찰수사관의 범죄혐의자들에 대한 폭행과 가혹행위가 직권을 남용한 과도한 물리력의 행사로서 사회통념상 용인될 수 있는 정당행위에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다고 한 사례.
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1985. 2. 26. 선고 82도2413 판결
가. 형사소송법 제309조는 "" 피고인의 자백이 고문, 폭행, 협박, 신체구속의 부당한 장기화 또는 기망 기타의 방법으로 임의로 진술한 것이 아니라고 의심할 만한 이유가 있을 때에는 이를 유죄의 증거로 하지 못한다"" 고 규정하고 있는 바, 위 법조에서 규정된 피고인의 진술의 자유를 침해하는 위법사유는 원칙적으로 예시사유
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2006. 5. 25. 선고 2003도3945 판결
[1] 증거의 증명력은 법관의 자유판단에 맡겨져 있으나 그 판단은 논리와 경험칙에 합치하여야 하고, 형사재판에 있어서 유죄로 인정하기 위한 심증형성의 정도는 합리적인 의심을 할 여지가 없을 정도여야 하나, 합리성이 없는 모든 가능한 의심을 배제할 정도에 이를 것까지 요구하는 것은 아니다.
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1997. 6. 13. 선고 97도877 판결
[1] 감금죄에 있어서의 감금행위는 사람으로 하여금 일정한 장소 밖으로 나가지 못하도록 하여 신체의 자유를 제한하는 행위를 가리키는 것이고, 그 방법은 반드시 물리적, 유형적 장애를 사용하는 경우뿐만 아니라 심리적, 무형적 장애에 의하는 경우도 포함되는 것이므로, 설사 그 장소가 경찰서 내 대기실로서 일반인과 면회인 및 경찰관이 수시로
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
拷問防止協約에 대한 美國의 留保와 國家實行 : 兩立性, 許容可能性과 效果
인도법논총
2005 .08
-
수사절차에서의 헌법원칙에 관한 소고
法學論文集
2015 .01
-
피의자신문에 있어서 인권보장 및 방어권 강화 방안
형사법연구
2003 .01
-
범죄 피의자의 얼굴공개에 대한 법적 평가
한양법학
2013 .02
-
인신구속제도의 일원화에 관한 연구 : 주요 선진국의 인신구속제도 비교를 중심으로
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2006 .12
-
군 수사절차상 인신구속제도의 문제점과 개선방안
형사정책연구
2003 .09
-
한국 수사구조의 비교법제적 위상 및 개선방향 : 형사절차상 검사와 사법경찰의 역할 및 상호관계를 중심으로
경찰학연구
2004 .10
-
피의사실공표죄의 합리적 적용방안 연구
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2019 .07
-
고문방지협약의 국방관련 국내이행 현황과 문제점
고려법학
2007 .01
-
수사구조개혁의 경제적 효과
법과 정책연구
2010 .01
-
유치장 감찰제도의 역사적 형성에 관한 연구 : 제도개선의 필요성을 중심으로
경찰학연구
2009 .12
-
피의사실공표죄의 형사법적 한계와 허용범위
외법논집
2011 .01
-
형사소송에서의 적법절차위반과 그 효과에 관한 연구
동아법학
2009 .08
-
구조를 위한 고문에 대한 비판적 고찰
비교형사법연구
2018 .01
-
현행 형사소송법상 체포제도에 대한 검토
법학연구
2009 .12
-
피의자진술의 법정현출방식과 조사자증언의 증거능력
비교형사법연구
2010 .01
-
중국 경찰과 검찰의 관계가 주는 시사점
치안정책연구
2019 .01
-
한국과 중국의 체포구속제도의 비교연구
비교형사법연구
2009 .01
-
긴급체포제도에 관한 소고
비교법학연구
2007 .09
-
소송이념구현의 관점에서 피의자신문조서의 증거능력인정과정상 제 문제
경찰학연구
2012 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-018423190