인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
연구보고서
Full-text AI
오류 신고하기해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
초록·키워드
Articles 12 and 27 of the Constitution stipulate due process, warrant requirement, right to assistance of counsel, right to prompt trial, and presumption of innocence as the principles of criminal procedure to guarantee personal liberty, which is a prerequisite for guaranteeing all basic rights. As part of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 275-2 and 70 also stipulate the principle of presumption of innocence, while limiting the grounds for detention that restrict personal liberty. Accordingly, “detention should only be used as a last resort if no alternative means are effective in fighting crime,” and when alternatives to detention succeed in advancing the criminal proceedings, it is natural to set up a system to select these alternatives in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
Various institutional mechanisms in the current Criminal Procedure Act are intended to realize the investigation and trial without confinement; however, given the reality of the current detention and release system, how much these institutional mechanisms contribute to realizing the principles of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act is questionable. From the outside, Korea’s release system seems to have an institution for achieving the principles of investigation and trial without detention as there are various systems in place ranging from direct judgment of warrants, which is considered to be the first step in detention and release, to reviewing the legality of confinement, to bail, to suspension of execution of custody, and to revocation of confinement. Nevertheless, closer examination reveals several structural problems. In the first place, it is difficult to decide which proceeding to use without substantial legal knowledge since each system differs in applicants, subjects of judgment, requirements, procedures, and effects. In addition, under the premise that the grounds for detention were strictly examined during the direct judgment of warrants, which is the first stage of the confinement, the request for bail is rarely accepted unless a change of circumstances occurs, such as the victim agreeing to settle or the deposit equivalent to the damage being made during subsequent review of the legality of the confinement or bail examination after prosecution. On the one hand, the notion of retribution or punishment that “one who is detained must have committed some crime” is woven into the public’s legal sentiment and is still evident in the prosecution and court practices regarding the arrest of individuals.
Although there are various institutional mechanisms for realizing the principles of investigation and trial without detention, the current arrest and release system is not functioning properly due to the following reasons: (1) the principle of investigation and trial without confinement is not deeply rooted in practice, and that the perception of arrest as punishment is still prevalent, and (2) the arrestee release system is structurally flawed. This study examines the problems associated with the current arrestee release system, and proposes ways to improve the bail system based on the analysis.
Various institutional mechanisms in the current Criminal Procedure Act are intended to realize the investigation and trial without confinement; however, given the reality of the current detention and release system, how much these institutional mechanisms contribute to realizing the principles of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act is questionable. From the outside, Korea’s release system seems to have an institution for achieving the principles of investigation and trial without detention as there are various systems in place ranging from direct judgment of warrants, which is considered to be the first step in detention and release, to reviewing the legality of confinement, to bail, to suspension of execution of custody, and to revocation of confinement. Nevertheless, closer examination reveals several structural problems. In the first place, it is difficult to decide which proceeding to use without substantial legal knowledge since each system differs in applicants, subjects of judgment, requirements, procedures, and effects. In addition, under the premise that the grounds for detention were strictly examined during the direct judgment of warrants, which is the first stage of the confinement, the request for bail is rarely accepted unless a change of circumstances occurs, such as the victim agreeing to settle or the deposit equivalent to the damage being made during subsequent review of the legality of the confinement or bail examination after prosecution. On the one hand, the notion of retribution or punishment that “one who is detained must have committed some crime” is woven into the public’s legal sentiment and is still evident in the prosecution and court practices regarding the arrest of individuals.
Although there are various institutional mechanisms for realizing the principles of investigation and trial without detention, the current arrest and release system is not functioning properly due to the following reasons: (1) the principle of investigation and trial without confinement is not deeply rooted in practice, and that the perception of arrest as punishment is still prevalent, and (2) the arrestee release system is structurally flawed. This study examines the problems associated with the current arrestee release system, and proposes ways to improve the bail system based on the analysis.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2023-364-000225846
