搜査節次上 被疑者의 權利에 관한 硏究 - 被疑者訊問을 中心으로

Metadata Downloads
Issued Date
犯罪搜査의 목적은 事件의 實體를 정확하게 파악하여 범죄에 대한 嫌疑의 眞僞를 밝혀 죄있는 자에 대하여는 처벌을 하고, 죄없는 자가 억울하게 처벌받지 않도록 판결의 實質的 正當性을 확보하는 것으로, 適正한 節次(due process)에 의한 正當한 판결, 즉 진실과 정의에 기초한 有罪判決을 얻는 데 있다고 할 수 있다.
適法節次의 原理에 따른 피의자의 보호는 無制限한 實體眞實主義에 대한 한계가 되며, 適法節次의 原理에 의한 피의자의 기본적 인권의 보장은 自由民主主義의 요청이고 실질적 법치주의의 근간이 된다고 하지 않을 수 없다.
제1장에서는 연구의 목적, 연구의 범위와 방법을 기술하였다. 제2장에서는 被疑者訊問과 관련된 기본이론에 관하여 연구를 하였다. 제3장에서는 被疑者訊問時 陳述拒否權, 변호인의 접견교통권과 참여권에 따른 問題點과 改善方向, 搜査書類 閱覽?謄寫請求權과 관련한 憲法裁判所와 대법원의 立場을 살펴보았다. 제4장에서는 搜査節次上 被疑者의 諸權利를 분석?검토한 후 그 問題點과 改善方案을 제시하고, 마지막으로 제5장에서 위 내용들을 정리하는 것으로 結論에 갈음하였다.|The goal of criminal investigation is to identify actual truth of accidents, punish the persons who are guilty by identifying truth of crimes and secure actual justice of judgement to avoid punishment of falsely-charged people. It is to obtain just judgement by due process, that is, to achieve judgement of guilt based on truth and justice.
However, though the first goal or idea of investigation process is to find actual truth, when suspects are investigated through the past structure of interrogational investigation, the investigational organization becomes the subject, forced punishment as a typical authority of investigational organizations is allowed, and suspects are only the objects. So, suspects are independently allowed to prepare themselves for defense and have positions of the subject rather than the object as forced punishment is considered as a typical authority of the court. However, real investigation is not managed as specified above. Investigational organizations with broad range of legal knowledge and experiences investigate crimes unilaterally and though rights of suspects are guaranteed in National Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, legal procedures are not observed according to investigational conventions, and the right of defense of suspects are not formally and informally guaranteed. Therefore, in that suspects whose crimes are not confirmed yet are considered as simple objects and whose personal right are trampled or due process may not be secured, the whole investigational process shall be specified in the code and the contents shall be properly composed and managed according to the actual principle of constitutional states.
In such intention, the protection of suspects according to legal procedure is a limit to infinite substantial truth principle, and the guaranty of human right of suspects according to the principle of legal procedure is a request of democracy and a base of actual constitutional government.
Section 1, Article 12 in Korean Constitution regulates , which declares a principle of legal procedure as an instructional principle of the criminal procedure. And Section 2 regulates . Section 4 regulates . It provides a basic direction to defend himself from national criminal authority by declaring a right to be assisted from lawyers in case of arrest or confinement.
Also, the Criminal Procedure Code reinforces the position of suspects according to the principle of the person concerned and a request of human right guaranty. The principle of innocence presumption is applied to suspects as well as the accused, and the right to be assisted from lawyers, the lawyer nomination request right, the lawyer nomination right, the interview and communication right, the statement rejection right, the evidence preservation claim right, the warrant principle, the confinement repeal claim right, and the arrest and confinement propriety judgement claim right are permitted to suspects.
According to the Criminal Procedure Code amended on August 29, 2004 by the Criminal Law Amendment Special Committee, the judge who receives a claim of an arrest warrant shall interrogate all the suspect to whom an arrest warrant is given. It indicates an expansion of subjects and range of actual warrant judgement. Although the current Criminal Procedure Code does not have a regulation that the participation right of lawyers in suspect interrogation is recognized by investigational organizations, the amended version has the participation right. Therefore, the participation right of lawyers in suspect interrogation shall be specifically written so that torture for forcing confession can be controlled and identification of suspect's statement with interrogation record can be guaranteed.
The guaranty of suspects' human right is a basic principle to be observed by investigational organizations. However, although the right of suspect are guaranteed in law, if their human right are not guaranteed by investigational organizations, invasion to human right will continue. Therefore, investigational organizations should stick to principles such as prior evidence collection and post arrest, follow due procedure based on optional investigation. Investigation should not be conducted in closed room and overnight, and should not be repulsive and violent. In arresting and confining criminals, investigational organizations shall notify the content of crime and the right to appoint a lawyer to suspects. In recording suspect interrogation, they shall notify the statement refusal right, keeping prohibition of forced confession in mind. When a prosecutor requests an warrant, he has to consider a possibility of fleeing and destruction of evidence. It is surely believed that the rights of suspects can be further guaranteed if the principle of innocence presumption, the principle of due process, and the principle of voluntary investigation are observed.
Alternative Title
A Study on the Suspected Persons Rights of Investigatian Procedure -Focusing on Suspect Interrogation
Alternative Author(s)
Lim, Byoung Rak
朝鮮大學校 大學院
일반대학원 법학과
Awarded Date
Table Of Contents
第 1章 序論 = 1
第 1節 硏究의 目的 = 1
第 2節 硏究의 範圍와 方法 = 4
第 2章 搜査節次上 被疑者訊問 = 6
第 1節 問題의 提起 = 6
第 2節 被疑者訊問의 法的 體系 = 9
1. 被疑者訊問의 槪念 = 9
2. 被疑者訊問의 機能 = 11
3. 被疑者訊問의 法的 性質 = 11
4. 被疑者訊問의 主體 = 16
5. 被疑者訊問의 方法과 節次 = 18
6. 被疑者訊問調書의 證據能力 = 26
第 3節 小結 = 32
第 3章 被疑者訊問時 被疑者의 權利 = 34
第 1節 陳述拒否權 = 34
1. 陳述拒否權의 意義 = 34
2. 陳述拒否權의 歷史的 背景 = 34
3. 陳述拒否權의 適用範圍 = 36
4. 陳述拒否權의 效果 = 43
5. 陳述拒否權과 自白의 任意性法則과의 關係 = 44
6. 陳述拒否權에 대한 批判論 = 46
第 2節 接見交通權과 參與權 = 47
1. 辯護人의 接見交通權 = 48
2. 辯護人의 參與權 = 57
第 3節 搜査書類 閱覽?謄寫請求權 = 67
1. 被疑者의 搜査記錄 閱覽?謄寫請求權의 問題 = 67
2. 辯護人의 搜査紀錄閱覽?謄寫權의 保障 = 70
第 4章 被疑者訊問時 被疑者權利의 問題點과 改善方向 = 74
第 1節 被疑者權利의 問題點 = 74
1. 陳述拒否權의 侵害 및 救濟上의 問題點 = 74
2. 辯護人參與에 따른 解釋論上 問題點 = 74
3. 被疑者의 搜査記錄閱覽·謄寫請求權의 問題點 = 78
第 2節 被疑者權利의 改善方向 = 79
1. 陳述拒否權의 侵害 및 救濟上의 改善方向 = 80
2. 辯護人의 被疑者訊問 參與權의 改善方向 = 81
3. 被疑者의 搜査記錄閱覽·謄寫請求權의 改善方向 = 84
第 5章 結論 = 86
參考 文獻 = 90
朝鮮大學校 大學院
林丙洛. (2004). 搜査節次上 被疑者의 權利에 관한 硏究 - 被疑者訊問을 中心으로.
Appears in Collections:
General Graduate School > 3. Theses(Master)
Authorize & License
  • AuthorizeOpen
  • Embargo2005-10-14
Files in This Item:
  • There are no files associated with this item.

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.