@article{ART003061153},
author={Hong, Seung-Hee},
title={Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments},
journal={Legal Theory & Practice Review},
issn={2288-1840},
year={2024},
volume={12},
number={1},
pages={465-494}
TY - JOUR
AU - Hong, Seung-Hee
TI - Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments
JO - Legal Theory & Practice Review
PY - 2024
VL - 12
IS - 1
PB - The Korea Society for Legal Theory and Practice Inc.
SP - 465
EP - 494
SN - 2288-1840
AB - Now, the investigator testimony system has become not only a powerful way for investigative agencies to recognize the evidentiary competence of suspect interviews, but also a very important tool for substantive truth discovery and criminal justice, as the investigator testimony system is no longer admissible if the defendant denies the contents of the interview in court, as it was amended by the Criminal Procedure Act in 2020.
As such, if it is an important tool for discovering the truth in criminal practice, more efforts should be made to secure the justification for the exception to the professional rule, which is to establish other requirements for the recognition of evidentiary competence other than the privileged state or to resolve the ambiguity of the privileged state. Of course, it is unclear what factors should be recognized as privileged status in other expert evidence, so efforts should be made to clarify privileged status in general, but it seems that it is more urgent to make efforts to clarify privileged status in the investigator testimony system without other requirements for admissibility.
Such refinement should be driven by practical considerations, as it will allow prosecutors with the burden of proof to focus their limited investigative capabilities on more individualized elements, and it will allow defendants to target specific targets in preparation for the exercise of their defense rights.
KW - investigator testimony system;trial-centeredness;direct examination;substantive truth discovery;privileged status
DO -
UR -
ER -
Hong, Seung-Hee. (2024). Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments. Legal Theory & Practice Review, 12(1), 465-494.
Hong, Seung-Hee. 2024, "Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments", Legal Theory & Practice Review, vol.12, no.1 pp.465-494.
Hong, Seung-Hee "Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments" Legal Theory & Practice Review 12.1 pp.465-494 (2024) : 465.
Hong, Seung-Hee. Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments. 2024; 12(1), 465-494.
Hong, Seung-Hee. "Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments" Legal Theory & Practice Review 12, no.1 (2024) : 465-494.
Hong, Seung-Hee. Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments. Legal Theory & Practice Review, 12(1), 465-494.
Hong, Seung-Hee. Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments. Legal Theory & Practice Review. 2024; 12(1) 465-494.
Hong, Seung-Hee. Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments. 2024; 12(1), 465-494.
Hong, Seung-Hee. "Limitations and Challenges of the Investigator Testimony System after the 2020 Criminal Procedure Code Amendments" Legal Theory & Practice Review 12, no.1 (2024) : 465-494.
