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.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The constitutional law and the criminal action law of our country clarify the presumption of innocence principle. But the application range of the presumption of innocence principles has been controversial not only in our country but also in foreign countries.
The common opinion of our country is that the presumption of innocence principle works on the basis of assumption principle of evidence law, restriction principle of the arrest of a criminal suspect and the principle of banning disadvantage in the process of criminal action. In the past, the basic right of the presumption of innocence principle was not practically guaranteed. Even after the presumption of innocence principle got clarified as one of the basic rights in constitutional law as well as in criminal action law, the regulations were so simple and abstract that its meaning and application range have mostly depended on the theories and precedent cases. In the meantime, our common knowledge and precedent cases seemed to show that it stretched the law in its favor to the whole criminal action process as well as an unwarrantable proceeding measure. If the presumption of innocence principle is applied widely, it might seem advantageous to the suspect and the accused. But the real meaning of the presumption of innocence principle gets unclear and it affects the essence of right which is to be protected. In addition, however well protected the suspect and the accused are withthe presumption of innocence principle, nobody can deny that compulsory action like the arrest of criminal suspect could be excessive. So the contradiction and conflict are caused between the presumption of innocence principle and the compulsory investigation.
The presumption of innocence principle is not abstract, ideological and instructive so it is crucial to make their meaning and applicable range clear. According to this, I dare to think that Dr Lee Jin Gook's view contending that the arrest of criminal suspect doesn't apply to the presumption of innocence principle but the principle of proper procedure and the principle of proportion ability meaningful. Imerely expect a deeper discussion on this, presenting a different opinion from that of Dr Lee's about whether the presumption of innocence principle works as assumption principle in the of evidence law and what unwarrantable proceeding measure means in the presumption of innocence principle.
The common opinion of our country is that the presumption of innocence principle works on the basis of assumption principle of evidence law, restriction principle of the arrest of a criminal suspect and the principle of banning disadvantage in the process of criminal action. In the past, the basic right of the presumption of innocence principle was not practically guaranteed. Even after the presumption of innocence principle got clarified as one of the basic rights in constitutional law as well as in criminal action law, the regulations were so simple and abstract that its meaning and application range have mostly depended on the theories and precedent cases. In the meantime, our common knowledge and precedent cases seemed to show that it stretched the law in its favor to the whole criminal action process as well as an unwarrantable proceeding measure. If the presumption of innocence principle is applied widely, it might seem advantageous to the suspect and the accused. But the real meaning of the presumption of innocence principle gets unclear and it affects the essence of right which is to be protected. In addition, however well protected the suspect and the accused are withthe presumption of innocence principle, nobody can deny that compulsory action like the arrest of criminal suspect could be excessive. So the contradiction and conflict are caused between the presumption of innocence principle and the compulsory investigation.
The presumption of innocence principle is not abstract, ideological and instructive so it is crucial to make their meaning and applicable range clear. According to this, I dare to think that Dr Lee Jin Gook's view contending that the arrest of criminal suspect doesn't apply to the presumption of innocence principle but the principle of proper procedure and the principle of proportion ability meaningful. Imerely expect a deeper discussion on this, presenting a different opinion from that of Dr Lee's about whether the presumption of innocence principle works as assumption principle in the of evidence law and what unwarrantable proceeding measure means in the presumption of innocence principle.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 무죄추정 원칙이 증거법상 추정 원리로서 작용하는지
Ⅲ. 무죄추정 원칙이 인신구속 제한 원리로서 작용하는지
Ⅳ. 무죄추정 원칙이 형사상 불이익 처우 제한 원리로서 작용하는지
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)
-
헌법재판소 1990. 11. 19. 선고 90헌가48 전원재판부〔위헌〕
1. 변호사업무정지명령제도(辯護士業務停止命令制度)의 당위성(當爲性)은, 형사소추(刑事訴追) 받은 변호사(辯護士)에게 계속 업무활동을 하도록 방치하면 의뢰인(依賴人)이나 사법제도(司法制度)의 원활한 운영(運營)에 구체적(具體的) 위험(危險)이 생길 염려가 있어서 이를 예방(豫防)하려는 데에 있다 할 것이고, 이는 잠정적(暫定的)이고
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 2003. 11. 27. 선고 2002헌마193 전원재판부
가. 군사법원법 제239조가 규정하고 있는 군사법경찰관의 10일간의 구속기간은 그 허용 자체가 헌법상 무죄추정의 원칙에서 파생되는 불구속수사원칙에 대한 예외이다.
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
무죄추정의 원칙과 공판전 인신구속 - 영장실질심사를 중심으로 -
법학연구
2019 .06
-
범죄보도와 무죄추정원칙
언론과법
2020 .08
-
不動産登記의 推定力
중앙법학
2016 .12
-
무죄추정원칙 적용에 관한 소고
한국경찰학회보
2013 .01
-
无证据概念的证明障碍证成
동북아법연구
2016 .01
-
A Study of the Presumption of Market Dominance Under Article 4 of the MRFTA
법학연구
2013 .07
-
부동산등기의 추정력과 증명책임 - 대법원 2002. 2. 5. 선고, 2001다72029 판결을 중심으로 -
고려법학
2019 .01
-
독점규제법사건 2002년 대법원판결에 대한 연구
법학논집
2002 .01
-
법정영상물 속의 무죄추정의 원칙 — 법학수업의 효율적 경영의 관점에서 —
경영법률
2019 .01
-
지적재산권법에서의 역내적용 추정에 관한 연구 －미국에서의 논의를 중심으로－
경영법률
2005 .01
-
상표법상 고의 추정 규정에 대한 소고
법학연구
2015 .12
-
강력범죄피의자 신상공개의 정당성여부에 대한 법적 검토
한양법학
2009 .05
-
친생자 추정이 미치는 범위와 그 한계 : 최근의 일본 최고재판소 판례(2014년 7월 17일 판결)를 소재로 하여
비교사법
2015 .08
-
피의사실공표죄의 형법적 한계
비교형사법연구
2006 .01
-
일본 조세법상 법인격부인 법리의 적용에 관한 소고
조세학술논집
2015 .10
-
친생자 추정 논의에 관한 법학방법론적 문제
가족법연구
2019 .01
-
미국법상 부자관계에 있어서 친생추정의 법리 : California 법을 중심으로
법학연구
2018 .11
-
부자관계의 결정기준: 혼인과 혈연
가족법연구
2019 .01
-
Constitutional Principles
유럽연구
2007 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-364-003968629