메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국형사법학회 형사법연구 형사법연구 제22권 제3호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
373 - 388 (16page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The Right to testify is based on the Privilege against self incrimination. This Privilege is declaratory of the common law, describes the Privilege as the right of a person in criminal proceedings to refuse to answer any question, or produce any document or thing, if to do so would tend to expose that person to proceedings for an offence or for recovery of a penalty. the Privilege is designed to protect a person from being compelled by the State to convict himself out of his own mouth. The privilege must be claimed on oath by the person who want to rely on it. Therefore Bar can not claim this privilege on his client's behalf. The Right to testify is very important right to the witness, and notifying this right to the witness is very important duty of the judge. So Unless the judge said the The Right to testify to the witness before examining the witness in the trial, The Oath of the witness is not valid. Therefore the witness can not be punished because of perjury. In Case1,2, The Court said that perjury is depending on the whether or not testimonial privilege is violated substantially. But whether testimonial privilege is violated or not must be estimated true to formal procedure. After all Decisoin of Case3,4 is reasonable. Because the examination of a witnesses without notifying The Right to testify is not valid.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (15)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0