Abstract :
“Doubt” is one of the criteria to initiate criminal prosecution, to use the measures of protection of evidence, and it is a key factor to determine whether a criminal inquire result with a criminal charge or not. Therefore, It is a main component in the criminal system. Because of its ambiguous and subjective structure, it can not be clearly defined without examining judicialinterpretetion. There is different level of doubt in any phase of criminal prosecution. Therefore we need to focus on different kind of doubts, which can be classified as initial or basic doubt, reasonable doubt, enough doubt and strong doubt. Reasonable doubt, one of them, can be defined as a kind of emotional feeling that leads an ordinary person to suspect in an ordinarysituation based on some tangible facts. Suspect, time and place play important role to emerge suspicion. Reasonable doubt must be based on a tangible fact. For example, if a doubt related to search warrant, finding fugitive end of the search should be foreseen based on some specific facts. The term of “strong doubt based on tangible facts” was enacted by a legislative amendment in around one year ago. This amendment was a groundbreaking chance in the criminal prosecution in terms of creating a more protective judicial mechanism to protect individual rights. However no more than within one year, the system comes back the same direction by bringing the term of “reasonable doubt” instead of the term of “strong doubt based on tangible fact” by a legislative enactment to Article 116(TCC).
NaturalLanguageKeyword :
Criminal Prosedure Law , Doubt , Reasonable Doubt , and Strong Doubt
