신호진 2023년 형사소송법 1년간 최신판례정리 문형사

HOME >

로스쿨/법률전문직

로스쿨/변호사시험

2023년 형사소송법 1년간 최신판례정리

짧은설명: 2022년 7월 1일부터 2023년 6월 15일자 판례공보 및 미간행 판례

출판사: 문형사

저자: 신호진 (2023상반기)

페이지: 89

출간일: 2023-07-06

판쇄: 2023상반기

ISBN: 9791166871290

정가: ~~8,000원~~

할인적용가: 7,200원 (10%)

구매제한: 옵션당 최소 1개

구매혜택: 할인 : 적립 마일리지 :

배송비

2,500원 / 주문시결제(선결제) 조건별배송 지역별추가배송비

택배

방문 수령지 : 서울특별시 관악구 쑥고개로 87 6층

▲ 분철(1책)-크리스탈링: ※ 체크시 1,500원 추가 옵션초기화

상품상세정보
배송안내
교환 및 반품안내
상품후기 (0)
상품문의 (0)

상품상세정보

★★★ 예약상품 주문시 함께 주문하신 모든 도서는 예약상품이 출시된 후 함께 발송됩니다.

★★★ 분철상품 은 결제완료후 제작에 들어가는 주문제작상품입니다.

1) 일반도서보다 1~2일 발송이 지연될 수 있습니다.

2) 주문접수 이후 교환, 취소, 환불이 불가능합니다.

★★★ 토요일 은 발송 업무만 운영하고 있으며 고객상담 및 문의응대업무는 운영하지않습니다.

따라서 금요일 오후 6시 이후 주문건은 결제완료 이후 취소 및 변경이 불가능합니다.

책소개

< 서 문 >
“2023년 1년간 최신판례”에 대하여
본서는 2022년 7월부터 2023년 6월까지 1년간 간행된 대법원 형법 판례와 2022년 1월 이후에 나온 미간행판례를 정리한 교재이다. 최근의 출제경향을 보면 최신판례의 출제비중이 상당히 높다.
본서를 통해서 최신판례에 대한 충분한 준비를 할 수 있도록 내용을 구성하였다.
1. 사실관계의 정리
판례는 구체적이고 특정한 사건에 대한 대법원의 판단이다. 그러므로 그 사건의 사실관계를 모르면서 판결요지만 공부하는 것은 어떤 영화의 줄거리도 모르면서 그 영화에 대해서 논하는 것처럼 실로 무의미하고 어리석은 행동이다. 이에 본서에서는 가장 먼저 판례의 사실관계를 정리하여 소개함으로써 판례를 보다 정확하게 이해할 수 있도록 하였다. 또한 최근의 문제경향이 “사례형”으로 변화해 가고 있으므로 사례를 중시하는 학습방법의 중요성이 더욱 강조되는 시점이라고 할 수 있다.
2. 쟁점의 부각
어떤 사건이 제1심이나 항소심에서 종결되지 않고 상고심인 대법원까지 올라왔다는 것은 그 사건에서 무엇인가 다투어지는 쟁점이 있었다는 것을 의미한다. 따라서 이러한 쟁점이 무엇인지를 모르고서 판례를 공부하는 것은 어떤 문제인지도 모르면서 해설만 읽는 것과 마찬가지로 역시 무의미하다. 이에 본서에서는 판례의 내용을 소개하기 전에 먼저 질문의 형태로 그 사건에서 다투어졌던 쟁점을 세분화하여 구체적으로 부각시킴으로써 판례를 보다 정확하게 이해할 수 있도록 하였다.
3. 중요부분의 강조
판례를 정식으로 공부하기 위해서는 판결문 전체를 읽어야 하겠지만, 그 내용이 방대하기 때문에 대법원은 판례의 핵심적 내용을 “판결요지”의 형태로 정리해서 제공하고 있다. 이에 따라 본서에서는 판결요지는 전체를 수록하였고, 이것만으로 이해가 어려울 경우에는 판결문에서 판결이유를 발췌해서 소개하였다. 그러나 최근에는 이 판결요지의 분량도 매우 많아져서 학습의 부담을 가중시키고 있다. 이에 본서에서는 객관식 문제의 지문으로 출제가 가능하거나 주관식 문제의 답안에 서술해야만 하는 중요부분에 대해서는 언더라인이나 고딕체로 강조함으로써 학습의 능률을 높이고 최종정리시에 신속한 정리가 가능하도록 하였다.
2023. 6. 25.
법학박사 신 호 진

…… 형 사 소 송 법 ……
[1] 수사의 개시····································································································· 3
1. 부재자 재산관리인의 고소권 (大判 2021도2488)···················································· 3
[2] 대인적 강제수사······························································································· 5
2. 현행범인 체포의 요건 (大判 2021도12213) <미간행>············································· 5
[3] 대물적 강제수사······························································································· 7
3. 압수·수색영장에 기재된 범죄 혐의사실과의 관련성 (大判 2019도10309) <미간행>····· 7
4. 원격지 서버 저장정보에 대한 압수·수색의 적법성 (大決 2020모735)······················· 10
5. 원격지 서버에 저장된 정보에 대한 압수의 적법성 여부 (大判 2022도1452) <미간행>······ 12
6. 압수·수색절차의 적법성 (大決 2019모2584)························································· 14
7. 정보저장매체에 대한 압수의 절차와 방법 (大判 2022도2960)································ 17
8. 압수·수색절차의 적법성 (大決 2016모587)··························································· 19
9. 임의제출된 정보저장매체에 대한 압수·수색의 범위 (大判 2016도9596) <미간행>····· 21
10. ｢통신비밀보호법｣상 전기통신 감청의 의미 (大判 2022도9877)····························· 24
11. 통신비밀보호법상의 ‘공개되지 아니한 타인간의 대화’의 의미 (大判 2020도1007)··· 26
12. 수사기관의 영장 없는 사진촬영의 적법성 (大判 2018도8161)······························· 28
[4] 공소제기의 방식······························································································ 30
13. 공소사실 중 범죄의 ‘일시’의 기재 정도 (大判 2022도8257)································· 30
[5] 공소시효········································································································ 31
14. 공소시효의 연장과 소급효 (大判 2020도1153)···················································· 31
15. 공소제기 후 형사처분을 면할 목적으로 국외에 있는 경우 (大判 2020도13547)······ 33
16. 형사소송법 제253조 제3항의 ‘형사처분을 면할 목적’의 의미 (大判 2019도5925)···· 34
[6] 공판심리의 범위······························································································ 36
17. 공소장변경의 필요성이 없음에도 공소장을 변경한 경우 (大判 2022도10564)········· 36
[7] 증거조사와 강제처분························································································ 37
18. 구속집행정지의 조건으로서 전자장치의 부착 여부 (大決 2022모1799)··················· 37
[8] 증거법의 기본개념··························································································· 39
19. 간접증거에 의한 증명의 정도 (大判 2022도2236)··············································· 39
[9] 증명의 기본원칙······························································································ 41
20. 증명력의 판단방법 (大判 2022도11245, 2022보도52)········································· 41
21. ‘위드마크 공식’의 적용을 위한 증명의 방법 (大判 2021도14074)·························· 43
22. 강간죄에서 피해자의 진술의 증명력 (大判 2018도19037) <미간행>······················ 45
23. 성폭력 피해자의 진술의 신빙성 판단방법 (大判 2021도3451)······························· 47
24. 성폭력 피해자의 진술의 증명력 판단방법 등 (大判 2020도11185)························ 49
[10] 전문법칙······································································································ 51
25. 공사사실 중 범죄 ‘일시’ 특정의 정도 및 검찰 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 (大判 2023도2102)········· 51
26. 수사과정에서 작성한 진술서의 증거능력 (大判 2022도9510)································ 53
27. 진술조서의 실질적 진정성립을 증명할 수 있는 영상녹화물의 의미 (大判 2022도364)················· 55
28. 세무공무원이 작성한 범칙혐의자심문조서의 증거능력 (大判 2022도8824)·············· 59
[11] 재판의 기본개념···························································································· 61
29. 재판장의 판결 변경 선고의 적법성 (大判 2017도3884)········································ 61
30. 재판서에 법관의 날인이 누락된 경우 (大判 2021도17427) <미간행>····················· 63
[12] 상소의 일반이론···························································································· 64
31. 공시송달의 적법요건과 상소권회복청구의 적법 여부 (大決 2022모439)················· 64
32. 상소권회복청구의 적법성 (大決 2023모350)······················································· 66
33. 집행유예취소결정에 대한 즉시항고권회복청구에 재소자 특칙의 적용여부 (大決 2022모1004)··············· 67
[13] 항 소··········································································································· 68
34. 항소심에서의 피고인 불출석 재판의 요건 (大判 2022도7940)······························· 68
35. 항소심에서 증인 진술의 신빙성에 대해서 제1심과 다른 판단을 하는 경우 (大判 2017도11582)·········· 69
36. 증언의 신빙성 판단이 제1심과 항소심이 다른 경우 (大判 2022도14645)··············· 71
37. 형사소송법 제364조의2에서 ‘항소한 공동피고인’의 범위 (大判 2021도10579)········ 73
[14] 상 고··········································································································· 74
38. 상고이유서를 제출해야 하는 자 (大決 2022도16568)·········································· 74
39. 비약적 상고에 항소로서의 효력의 인정여부 (大判 2021도17131, 2021전도170, 전원합의체 판결)······ 75
[15] 항 고··········································································································· 79
40. 준항고 대상을 특정하기 어려운 경우 법원이 취해야 할 조치 (大決 2022모1566)··· 79
[16] 재 심··········································································································· 81
41. 재심청구의 대상 (大決 2022모509)··································································· 81
[17] 비상상고······································································································ 83
·선고형의 한계를 초과한 경우 (大判 2021오12) <미간행>········································· 83
·선고형의 한계를 초과한 경우 (大判 2021오24) <미간행>········································· 83
[18] 약식절차······································································································ 84
42. 정식재판청구와 정식재판청구권회복청구의 적법요건 (大決 2022모1872)················ 84
[19] 피해자 보호절차···························································································· 86
43. 배상명령과 ‘다른 절차에 따른 손해배상청구’의 관계 (大判 2020도12279)············· 86
[20] 형사보상과 명예회복······················································································ 88
44. 공소기각결정에 대한 형사보상청구기간 (大決 2020모627)··································· 88