RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
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
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      조사자증언제도의 한계와 효율적 개선방안 = Limitations of InvestigatorTestimony System and Efficient Improvement Measures

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A109737759

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      This study examines the legislative background and practical implementation of the Investigator Testimony System under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act. It further analyzes the enhanced institutional significance of the system following the 2020 amendment of the Act, with a view to proposing measures for its effective operation.
      Introduced in 2007 as a supplementary mechanism when a defendant retracts a statement during trial, the system has seen limited practical use due to the stringent condition of trustworthiness, lack of cooperation from investigative agencies, and concerns regarding memory distortion and interpretive bias. The 2020 amendment substantially elevated investigator testimony as virtually the only viable alternative for introducing prior statements, by imposing identical evidentiary requirements on prosecutor-written interrogation records and those by judicial police officers, while abolishing the provision allowing authenticity to be established via video recordings.
      Through a comparative analysis of analogous systems in the United States, Germany, France, and Japan, this paper identifies implications for systemic reform. It proposes specific institutional improvements, including the clarification of the trustworthiness requirement, reforms to evidentiary hearing procedures, and the supplementary use of written records and video recordings. Ultimately, the study seeks to strike a balance between the principle of court-centered trial and the defendant’s right to cross-examination, while safeguarding the core objective of discovering substantive truth in criminal proceedings.
      번역하기

      This study examines the legislative background and practical implementation of the Investigator Testimony System under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act. It further analyzes the enhanced institutional significance of the system following the 2020 amen...

      This study examines the legislative background and practical implementation of the Investigator Testimony System under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act. It further analyzes the enhanced institutional significance of the system following the 2020 amendment of the Act, with a view to proposing measures for its effective operation.
      Introduced in 2007 as a supplementary mechanism when a defendant retracts a statement during trial, the system has seen limited practical use due to the stringent condition of trustworthiness, lack of cooperation from investigative agencies, and concerns regarding memory distortion and interpretive bias. The 2020 amendment substantially elevated investigator testimony as virtually the only viable alternative for introducing prior statements, by imposing identical evidentiary requirements on prosecutor-written interrogation records and those by judicial police officers, while abolishing the provision allowing authenticity to be established via video recordings.
      Through a comparative analysis of analogous systems in the United States, Germany, France, and Japan, this paper identifies implications for systemic reform. It proposes specific institutional improvements, including the clarification of the trustworthiness requirement, reforms to evidentiary hearing procedures, and the supplementary use of written records and video recordings. Ultimately, the study seeks to strike a balance between the principle of court-centered trial and the defendant’s right to cross-examination, while safeguarding the core objective of discovering substantive truth in criminal proceedings.

      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