KCI등재
형사소송법 제312조의 영상녹화물의 증거능력 = A Study on Admissibility of Evidence of Cinematographic Work According to Korean Criminal Procedure Act §312
저자
류지영 (우석대학교)
발행기관
학술지명
권호사항
발행연도
2008
작성언어
Korean
주제어
등재정보
KCI등재
자료형태
학술저널
수록면
115-136(22쪽)
KCI 피인용횟수
3
DOI식별코드
제공처
소장기관
In Korea there was a substantial change in criminal procedure act since 1.1.
2008, The new type of system was introduced to the revised criminal
procedure act, especially that is the induction of the cinematographic work
system in time of examination of a suspect or witness. As a symbolic matter,
prosecutor interrogation is microcosm for some of our most fundamental
conflicts about the norms that should guide state conduct, particularly
manipulative, deceptive, and coercive conduct in the modern era. In short,
prosecutor interrogation and confession-taking go to heart of our conception of
procedure justice system and society we wish to have. The induction of the
cinematographic work system is the form a link in the chain of this program.
The ultimate goal of law and the criminal justice system would be the
realization of justice.
There has been big difference between prosecution and court to construe the
Korean criminal procedure act §312. But we should think over the background
that the cinematographic work has been introduced to criminal procedure act.
At first, the general rule excluding hearsay evidence cannot be fully
understood without a clear understanding of what hearsay is. Written record by the prosecutor is a example of hearsay. The cinematographic work system is
only complementary of written record by the prosecutor. To allow admissibility
of evidence of cinematographic work is confusion of the means with the end
that statement has been transmitted without distorting a fact. Second,
cinematographic work is the measures to keep watch on the investigation
agency. So cinematographic work has to be functioned as observation measures.
Third, the material truth is not objective or substantial in the view of natural
science, but the judgement of mutual subjective and normative. Cinematographic
work is not measures directly to prove the truth. Fourth, In Korean trial
criminal procedure, in case of witness examination, each party was called for
matters subject to examination by the full bench, and there were many cases
that the content of examination is detailed, but answer is short, for the most
part only 「yes」 or 「no」 can be chosen. In these cases it is very difficult
to prove the change of statement by cinematographic work. Fifth, to wipe out
the distrust of people's so called protocol trial, It couldn't consent to grant
admissibility of evidence of cinematographic work. According to the view of
revised criminal procedure act, the cinematographic work is to used the
measures only to recall to witness's mind. Sixth, the cinematographic work is a
possibility with a great potential of conviction, without regard truth or
falsehood.
In conclusion, If the cinematographic work would be allowed the
admissibility of evidence or impeachment of witness or accused, it is
inconsistent to the sprit of revised criminal procedure act and the idea of oral
statement.
In Korea there was a substantial change in criminal procedure act since 1.1.
2008, The new type of system was introduced to the revised criminal
procedure act, especially that is the induction of the cinematographic work
system in time of examination of a suspect or witness. As a symbolic matter,
prosecutor interrogation is microcosm for some of our most fundamental
conflicts about the norms that should guide state conduct, particularly
manipulative, deceptive, and coercive conduct in the modern era. In short,
prosecutor interrogation and confession-taking go to heart of our conception of
procedure justice system and society we wish to have. The induction of the
cinematographic work system is the form a link in the chain of this program.
The ultimate goal of law and the criminal justice system would be the
realization of justice.
There has been big difference between prosecution and court to construe the
Korean criminal procedure act §312. But we should think over the background
that the cinematographic work has been introduced to criminal procedure act.
At first, the general rule excluding hearsay evidence cannot be fully
understood without a clear understanding of what hearsay is. Written record by the prosecutor is a example of hearsay. The cinematographic work system is
only complementary of written record by the prosecutor. To allow admissibility
of evidence of cinematographic work is confusion of the means with the end
that statement has been transmitted without distorting a fact. Second,
cinematographic work is the measures to keep watch on the investigation
agency. So cinematographic work has to be functioned as observation measures.
Third, the material truth is not objective or substantial in the view of natural
science, but the judgement of mutual subjective and normative. Cinematographic
work is not measures directly to prove the truth. Fourth, In Korean trial
criminal procedure, in case of witness examination, each party was called for
matters subject to examination by the full bench, and there were many cases
that the content of examination is detailed, but answer is short, for the most
part only 「yes」 or 「no」 can be chosen. In these cases it is very difficult
to prove the change of statement by cinematographic work. Fifth, to wipe out
the distrust of people's so called protocol trial, It couldn't consent to grant
admissibility of evidence of cinematographic work. According to the view of
revised criminal procedure act, the cinematographic work is to used the
measures only to recall to witness's mind. Sixth, the cinematographic work is a
possibility with a great potential of conviction, without regard truth or
falsehood.
In conclusion, If the cinematographic work would be allowed the
admissibility of evidence or impeachment of witness or accused, it is
inconsistent to the sprit of revised criminal procedure act and the idea of oral
statement.
분석정보
연월일 | 이력구분 | 이력상세 | 등재구분 |
---|---|---|---|
2026 | 평가예정 | 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증) | |
2020-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) | KCI등재 |
2017-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) | KCI등재 |
2013-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | KCI등재 |
2010-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | KCI등재 |
2008-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | KCI등재 |
2005-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) | KCI등재 |
2004-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) | KCI후보 |
2003-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) | KCI후보 |
기준연도 | WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) | KCIF(2년) | KCIF(3년) |
---|---|---|---|
2016 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.62 |
KCIF(4년) | KCIF(5년) | 중심성지수(3년) | 즉시성지수 |
0.6 | 0.55 | 0.818 | 0.23 |
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)