RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    참고인진술의 확보방안에 관한 연구 = 참고인 강제구인을 중심으로

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A82645751

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    The purpose of the Criminal Procedure Code is the Discovery of the Substantive Truth through Due Process of Law. The discovery of the substantive truth cannot be made only with the confession of the suspect. It is the Statement of the Witness that can compensate for the confession of the suspect. However, there is no way to arrest the witness who does not respond to the summon of the investigative agency in current law system. Prosecutors want to perform the coercive summon on the witnesses who do not respond to the summons. But the Court, Scholars and various Human Right organizations object it because the coercive summon would infringe the human rights and they may make more efforts in the investigation of the witnesses rather than finding the material evidences if they can arrest the witnesses who are merely supporter of the investigation. Because of these objections, many proposals by Ministry of Law and the Prosecution have not been enforced.
    However, it was reported that the Ministry of Law would submit an Amendment Proposal of Criminal Procedure Code to the Congress in October 2010 so that they could perform the coercive summon on the material witnesses. The Ministry asserted that it had already been enforced in the developed countries and it is necessary to solve grave crimes.
    On this matter, this article addressed the objection against the coercive summon of the witness in principle. It is because they can gather enough evidences utilizing the provisions in Criminal Procedure Code such as Evidence Preservation Request (Article 184 of Criminal Procedure Code) and Witness Examination Request (Article 221.2 of Criminal Procedure Code). If it is not enough, they should investigate through visit, mail and phone interrogation and e-mail interrogation.
    However, if the investigation system in the developed countries has been in place and people’s opinions on this matter converged, it can be introduced with the protection and compensation of the witnesses. The important conditions are it should be restricted to major offences falling under more than 10 years’ imprisonment with the warrant by the judge.
    번역하기

    The purpose of the Criminal Procedure Code is the Discovery of the Substantive Truth through Due Process of Law. The discovery of the substantive truth cannot be made only with the confession of the suspect. It is the Statement of the Witness that can...

    The purpose of the Criminal Procedure Code is the Discovery of the Substantive Truth through Due Process of Law. The discovery of the substantive truth cannot be made only with the confession of the suspect. It is the Statement of the Witness that can compensate for the confession of the suspect. However, there is no way to arrest the witness who does not respond to the summon of the investigative agency in current law system. Prosecutors want to perform the coercive summon on the witnesses who do not respond to the summons. But the Court, Scholars and various Human Right organizations object it because the coercive summon would infringe the human rights and they may make more efforts in the investigation of the witnesses rather than finding the material evidences if they can arrest the witnesses who are merely supporter of the investigation. Because of these objections, many proposals by Ministry of Law and the Prosecution have not been enforced.
    However, it was reported that the Ministry of Law would submit an Amendment Proposal of Criminal Procedure Code to the Congress in October 2010 so that they could perform the coercive summon on the material witnesses. The Ministry asserted that it had already been enforced in the developed countries and it is necessary to solve grave crimes.
    On this matter, this article addressed the objection against the coercive summon of the witness in principle. It is because they can gather enough evidences utilizing the provisions in Criminal Procedure Code such as Evidence Preservation Request (Article 184 of Criminal Procedure Code) and Witness Examination Request (Article 221.2 of Criminal Procedure Code). If it is not enough, they should investigate through visit, mail and phone interrogation and e-mail interrogation.
    However, if the investigation system in the developed countries has been in place and people’s opinions on this matter converged, it can be introduced with the protection and compensation of the witnesses. The important conditions are it should be restricted to major offences falling under more than 10 years’ imprisonment with the warrant by the judge.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • Ⅰ. 서론
    • Ⅱ. 참고인 조사의 개관
    • Ⅲ. 참고인의 출석확보 방안
    • Ⅳ. 외국의 참고인 구인제도
    • Ⅴ. 참고인 강제구인의 찬?반론과 도입여부
    • Ⅰ. 서론
    • Ⅱ. 참고인 조사의 개관
    • Ⅲ. 참고인의 출석확보 방안
    • Ⅳ. 외국의 참고인 구인제도
    • Ⅴ. 참고인 강제구인의 찬?반론과 도입여부
    • Ⅵ. 결론
    • 참고문헌
    • Abstract
    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼