• AI글쓰기 2.1 업데이트
PARTNER
검증된 파트너 제휴사 자료

2021년도 형사소송법 판례 회고 (Review of the Criminal Procedure Precedents of the Korean Supreme Court in 2021)

65 페이지
기타파일
최초등록일 2025.03.28 최종저작일 2022.07
65P 미리보기
2021년도 형사소송법 판례 회고
  • 미리보기

    서지정보

    · 발행기관 : 한국형사판례연구회
    · 수록지 정보 : 형사판례연구 / 30권 / 571 ~ 635페이지
    · 저자명 : 강동범

    초록

    This paper examines the Criminal Procedure Precedents of the Korean Supreme Court in 2021. I describe in chapter 1 the issues of the Supreme Court Judgment(2021.11.18. 2016do348 en banc)(hereinafter referred to as the ‘en banc’) and the overall order of review.
    In Chapter 2, while discussing the en banc in detail, I agree with the conclusion but point out the problem with the argument and suggest an alternative. In other words, when an investigative agency confiscates electronic data from the mobile phone of a suspect arbitrarily submitted by a third party, such as the victim, (1) (method of seizure) the principle of confiscating the output of electronic data related to the facts of the alleged accusation, with the exception of confiscating the electronic data storage medium itself or a copy of the alleged object, (2) (object of seizure) electronic data that is related to the facts of the alleged and has the minimum value to prove it, and (3) (the seizure procedure) appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the procedural rights of the accused, such as guaranteeing the right to participate and issuing a list of the seized electronic data to the accused who is the actual confiscator.
    In the case of (3) of these, the basis for this is not Article 121, 129 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but rather the distinction between the arbitrary submission of the data storage medium and the confiscation of the stored data, and in the latter case a search warrant for seizure is required.
    Judgments on investigation and prosecution are dealt with in Chapter 3, which dealt with the delay in the execution of the arrest warrant and the unlawfulness of detention, the effect of the seizure and search by the seizure and search warrant that incorrectly marked the accused, the criteria for determining whether the seizure and search warrant had an objective relevance to the facts of the alleged crime, and the judgment that determined whether the abuse of the right to prosecution. Of these, in a case in which a prosecution was filed 4 years after the suspension of prosecution, the first decision by the Supreme Court to explicitly admit abuse of the right to prosecution and sentence the prosecution to be dismissed is meaningful.
    In Chapter 4, I looked at the Supreme Court decisions concerning the trial proceedings and appeals.
    The final chapter introduces the judgment on the timing of the disappearance of the parties' capacity of the corporation, the illegality of the entrapment investigation, and the retrial proceedings.

    영어초록

    This paper examines the Criminal Procedure Precedents of the Korean Supreme Court in 2021. I describe in chapter 1 the issues of the Supreme Court Judgment(2021.11.18. 2016do348 en banc)(hereinafter referred to as the ‘en banc’) and the overall order of review.
    In Chapter 2, while discussing the en banc in detail, I agree with the conclusion but point out the problem with the argument and suggest an alternative. In other words, when an investigative agency confiscates electronic data from the mobile phone of a suspect arbitrarily submitted by a third party, such as the victim, (1) (method of seizure) the principle of confiscating the output of electronic data related to the facts of the alleged accusation, with the exception of confiscating the electronic data storage medium itself or a copy of the alleged object, (2) (object of seizure) electronic data that is related to the facts of the alleged and has the minimum value to prove it, and (3) (the seizure procedure) appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the procedural rights of the accused, such as guaranteeing the right to participate and issuing a list of the seized electronic data to the accused who is the actual confiscator.
    In the case of (3) of these, the basis for this is not Article 121, 129 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but rather the distinction between the arbitrary submission of the data storage medium and the confiscation of the stored data, and in the latter case a search warrant for seizure is required.
    Judgments on investigation and prosecution are dealt with in Chapter 3, which dealt with the delay in the execution of the arrest warrant and the unlawfulness of detention, the effect of the seizure and search by the seizure and search warrant that incorrectly marked the accused, the criteria for determining whether the seizure and search warrant had an objective relevance to the facts of the alleged crime, and the judgment that determined whether the abuse of the right to prosecution. Of these, in a case in which a prosecution was filed 4 years after the suspension of prosecution, the first decision by the Supreme Court to explicitly admit abuse of the right to prosecution and sentence the prosecution to be dismissed is meaningful.
    In Chapter 4, I looked at the Supreme Court decisions concerning the trial proceedings and appeals.
    The final chapter introduces the judgment on the timing of the disappearance of the parties' capacity of the corporation, the illegality of the entrapment investigation, and the retrial proceedings.

    참고자료

    · 없음
  • 자주묻는질문의 답변을 확인해 주세요

    해피캠퍼스 FAQ 더보기

    꼭 알아주세요

    • 자료의 정보 및 내용의 진실성에 대하여 해피캠퍼스는 보증하지 않으며, 해당 정보 및 게시물 저작권과 기타 법적 책임은 자료 등록자에게 있습니다.
      자료 및 게시물 내용의 불법적 이용, 무단 전재∙배포는 금지되어 있습니다.
      저작권침해, 명예훼손 등 분쟁 요소 발견 시 고객센터의 저작권침해 신고센터를 이용해 주시기 바랍니다.
    • 해피캠퍼스는 구매자와 판매자 모두가 만족하는 서비스가 되도록 노력하고 있으며, 아래의 4가지 자료환불 조건을 꼭 확인해주시기 바랍니다.
      파일오류 중복자료 저작권 없음 설명과 실제 내용 불일치
      파일의 다운로드가 제대로 되지 않거나 파일형식에 맞는 프로그램으로 정상 작동하지 않는 경우 다른 자료와 70% 이상 내용이 일치하는 경우 (중복임을 확인할 수 있는 근거 필요함) 인터넷의 다른 사이트, 연구기관, 학교, 서적 등의 자료를 도용한 경우 자료의 설명과 실제 자료의 내용이 일치하지 않는 경우

“형사판례연구”의 다른 논문도 확인해 보세요!

문서 초안을 생성해주는 EasyAI
안녕하세요 해피캠퍼스의 20년의 운영 노하우를 이용하여 당신만의 초안을 만들어주는 EasyAI 입니다.
저는 아래와 같이 작업을 도와드립니다.
- 주제만 입력하면 AI가 방대한 정보를 재가공하여, 최적의 목차와 내용을 자동으로 만들어 드립니다.
- 장문의 콘텐츠를 쉽고 빠르게 작성해 드립니다.
- 스토어에서 무료 이용권를 계정별로 1회 발급 받을 수 있습니다. 지금 바로 체험해 보세요!
이런 주제들을 입력해 보세요.
- 유아에게 적합한 문학작품의 기준과 특성
- 한국인의 가치관 중에서 정신적 가치관을 이루는 것들을 문화적 문법으로 정리하고, 현대한국사회에서 일어나는 사건과 사고를 비교하여 자신의 의견으로 기술하세요
- 작별인사 독후감
  • 전문가요청 배너
해캠 AI 챗봇과 대화하기
챗봇으로 간편하게 상담해보세요.
2025년 12월 01일 월요일
AI 챗봇
안녕하세요. 해피캠퍼스 AI 챗봇입니다. 무엇이 궁금하신가요?
12:14 오전