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
In other incidents, the Supreme Court have constantly recognized accomplice protocols of hearings as evidences based on Criminal Procedure law Article 315, provision 3 in regard with the power of evidence from accomplice protocol of hearing. However, the code of Criminal Procedure Article 315, Provision 3, in comparing with Provision1 and 2, is the provision in which lack of regular definitions as well as adumbrative lawmaking formality may cause problems. However, even if those problems could be overcome by limiting the documentation equivalent to the amount of scope of those of the code of Criminal Procedure Article 315, Provision 1 and 2, the accomplice protocols of hearing were not regularly written regardless of proper crimes. Also, even if the relevant criminal facts would be in the Article 315, Provision 3, the protocols wouldn’t appear to have credibility by circumstantial guarantee due to the absence of cross-examination. Therefore, recognizing the accomplice protocol of other hearings as evidence to the criminal defendant in this hearing unconditionally would squarely violate or not correspond to constitutional due process (Article 12 of the Constitution) and the right to a fair trial (Article 27 of the Constitution). Therefore, even though accomplice protocol of other hearings is made in the presence of a judge, in order to be recognized as evidence against the criminal defendant of this hearing, as it is not the statements from the defendant, it would be desirable to be admitted under the strict regulation, Criminal Procedure Article 313, Provision 1.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (29)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0