韩中两国刑事强制措施制度比较研究

发布时间：2018-06-14 10:54

本文选题：刑事强制措施 + 基本权利　；参考：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：拘传、取保候审、监视居住、拘留和逮捕等刑事强制措施是直接关系到公民宪法上的基本权利,贯穿侦查、审查起诉和审判整个阶段的重要诉讼活动。尤其是拘留和逮捕,其严重性实质上跟判决生效以后的有期徒刑没有两样。另外,在侦查过程中实施的各种强制性措施,比如勘验、检查、搜查、扣押、监听等措施,限制或侵犯财产权、居住权、通信权等公民宪法上的基本权利,其严重性跟限制人身自由的强制措施差不多。本文比较中国和韩国的刑事强制措施,包括侦查过程中的强制性措施,这里先记述中国刑事强制措施制度,然后介绍韩国刑事强制措施制度,最后比较分析两国制度。本文第一章说明两国刑事强制措施的概念,两国刑事诉讼法对强制措施的规定方式、体系、种类,世界通用的有关普遍原则,即强制措施法定主义、司法审查原则、比例性原则和无罪推定原则。本文第二章先说明中国非羁押性强制措施:拘传、取保候审和监视居住,然后介绍韩国的类似制度:拘引、拘留?逮捕适否审查制度和保释。中国取保候审和监视居住,尤其是取保候审在一定程度上起救济程序的作用,因此本章介绍和比较韩国作为救济程序的拘留?逮捕适否审查制度和保释,但是两国这些制度的不同处比相同处更多。本文第三章先说明中国的羁押性强制措施—拘留和逮捕,然后简介韩国拘留和逮捕,接着进行比较分析两国制度。两国的拘留和逮捕在刑事诉讼上的意义和作用差不多,但是在具体的立法和执法中呈现相当大的区别,即在拘留和逮捕的条件、令状主义的确立与否、羁押期限等方面有比较大的区别。本文第四章介绍两国对物的强制措施:勘验、检查、搜查和扣押,然后比较两国制度。中国刑事诉讼法没有直接规定对物的强制措施,而规定勘验、检查、搜查、扣押等一些强制性措施。这篇论文为了比较研究方便把上述的强制性措施统一表述为对物的强制措施。两国制度规定对物的强制措施方式不一样,中国不把对物的强制措施纳入到强制措施的范畴内,而韩国把它纳入到强制措施的范畴内。本文第五章介绍对隐私权的强制措施。这不是根据强制措施直接对象的分类,而是根据会被侵犯的权利性质的分类。现代日常生活当中,隐私权越来越成为重要的权利,可是随着科学技术的发展,侵犯隐私权的危险性也越来越大。因此,需要确立限制侵犯隐私权的规定。本文第五章作为比较和分析两国强制措施和强制性措施的总结,提出中国现行有关法律存在的一些问题和改善意见,即提出以扩张强制措施的范畴、确立令状主义、改善救济程序、明确逮捕的条件、缩短羁押期限来谋求改善法律的建议。
[Abstract]:Criminal coercive measures, such as arrest, bail pending trial, surveillance of residence, detention and arrest, are important litigation activities in the whole stage of investigation, examination and trial, which are directly related to the basic rights of citizens in the constitution. Detention and arrest, in particular, are essentially as serious as prison terms after the sentence came into effect. In addition, various coercive measures implemented in the course of investigation, such as investigation, inspection, search, seizure, surveillance and other measures, restrict or violate the basic constitutional rights of citizens, such as property rights, residency rights, communication rights, etc. It is as serious as coercive measures that restrict personal liberty. This paper compares the criminal coercive measures between China and South Korea, including the coercive measures in the course of investigation. This paper first describes the system of criminal coercive measures in China, then introduces the system of criminal coercive measures in Korea, and finally compares and analyzes the systems of the two countries. The first chapter of this paper explains the concept of criminal coercive measures in both countries, the way, the system, the types and the universal principles of compulsory measures in the criminal procedure law of the two countries, that is, the statutory doctrine of coercive measures and the principle of judicial review. Principle of proportionality and presumption of innocence. The second chapter first explains the non-custodial coercive measures in China: detention, bail pending trial and residential surveillance, and then introduces the similar system in Korea: arrest, detention? Arrest censorship and bail. In China, bail pending trial and residential surveillance, especially bail pending trial, to a certain extent, play a role in the relief procedure, so this chapter introduces and compares the Korean detention as a relief procedure? Arrests are subject to censorship and bail, but there are more differences than similarities. The third chapter first explains the compulsory measures of detention in China-detention and arrest, then introduces the detention and arrest in Korea, and then makes a comparative analysis of the two countries' systems. Detention and arrest in the two countries have the same significance and effect in criminal proceedings, but there are considerable differences in specific legislation and law enforcement, that is, in the conditions of detention and arrest, the establishment of writ doctrine, There is a big difference in terms of the duration of detention. The fourth chapter introduces the compulsory measures of the two countries: investigation, inspection, search and seizure, and then compares the two countries' systems. China's Criminal procedure Law does not directly prescribe compulsory measures against property, but some compulsory measures, such as inspection, search, seizure and so on. For the purpose of comparative study, this paper presents the above coercive measures as coercive measures in rem. The two countries' systems stipulate different ways of coercive measures against things. China does not bring them into the category of coercive measures, while South Korea brings them into the category of coercive measures. The fifth chapter introduces the compulsory measures to the right of privacy. This is not based on the classification of direct objects of coercive measures, but on the nature of the rights to be violated. In modern daily life, the right of privacy is becoming more and more important, but with the development of science and technology, the risk of violating the right of privacy is increasing. Therefore, it is necessary to establish restrictions on the violation of the right to privacy provisions. In the fifth chapter of this paper, as a comparison and analysis of the two countries' coercive measures and coercive measures, the author puts forward some problems and improvements in China's current relevant laws, that is, to expand the scope of coercive measures to establish writ doctrine. Improve relief procedures, clear conditions of arrest, shorten the duration of detention to seek to improve the law.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D925.2;D931.26

【参考文献】