On the Legal Dogmatics of the Coherence of Evidence between Supervision Law and Criminal Procedure Law-Centered on the Regulations on the Implementation of the Supervision Law

The introduction of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Supervision Law marks a new step in the evidence coherence of the criminal procedure law and supervision law. In order to accurately understand the coherence and application of evidence in duty-related crime cases, it needs to adopt the method of legal dogmatics. Before the work of interpretation starts, the subjectivism of legal dogmatics should be upheld. The Regulations on the Implementation of the Supervision Law has its own logical system in evidence coherence. Specifically, there are three types of norms: the type of norms of access to evidence, the type of norms of obtaining evidence, and the type of norms of excluding evidence. The types of evidence which belong to the norms of access to evidence can be used as evidence in criminal procedure. Article 69 of the Regulations on the Implementation of the Supervision Law creates a bidirectional rule of evidence coherence. The norms of obtaining evidence do not contain the rules on standards of proof but provide a positive way that the methods of collecting and acquiring evidence should accord with the criminal procedure law. In addition, the norms of excluding evidence provide a negative way for the exclusion of illegal evidence. Confessions obtained with illegal methods by supervisors should be excluded in criminal procedure.