토론문 : 형사변호사의 직업윤리

최병천 ( Byung Chun Choi ) 법과사회이론학회(구 법과사회이론연구회) 2005 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.29

탄핵증거이론의 재구성 -미국과의 비교법적 고찰-

최병천 ( Byung Chun Choi ) 한국경찰법학회 2015 경찰법연구 Vol.13 No.1

Korean Criminal Procedure Law § 318-2 provides that inadmissible hearsay evidence may be used as an impeaching one. And judicial precedents and studies on impeachment evidence theory are not rare. Nevertheless, impeachment evidence has not been applied so much in our criminal procedure. Even though a hearsay document becomes inadmissible awing to denial of authentication or truth by the person who made the statement on the hearsay document, virtually nobody tries to use that inadmissible hearsay evidence as impeaching one. In my opinion, such odd phenomenon happens because our impeachment theory that impeaching means attacking the probative power of statement does not conform to reality. Because the notion that impeachment evidence is for attacking the probative power of statement leads to the wrong conclusion that the existence or absence of charged facts can be proved by inadmissible evidence as a substantial one. If so, impeachment evidence as attacking the probative power of statement can not exist. It is obvious that such conclusion can not be allowed in our criminal evidence system. We have to comprehend impeachment evidence in a different way unlike traditional one. So I have studied and introduced American impeachment theory in considerable detail in this article. And I have found the conception on impeachment evidence much differs from that of USA. As our impeachment theory leads to the above wrong conclusion, the American impeachment theory may be selectively adopted in reconstruction of impeachment evidence system. The alternative for the conventional understanding of impeachment evidence must be founded on our own legal basis.

피의자신문조서의 증거능력 - 미국과의 비교법적 고찰 -

최병천(Choi, Byung-chun) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2019 法學硏究 Vol.59 No.-

이 논문은 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서의 증거사용이 어느 정도로 허용되어야 할지에 관하여 다루었다. 피의자신문조서의 증거사용을 반대하는 견해는 조서의 증거사용이 공판중심주의에 반하고, 자백을 얻기 위한 인권침해를 야기하며, 미국에서는 조서를 증거로 사용하는 제도가 없다는 것 등을 논거로 들고 있다. 미국의 연방증거법인 FRE에서는, 피고인이 한 법정외 진술 내지 인정진술을 비전문증거로 취급함으로써 피고인이 한 법정외 진술을 당연히 증거로 사용할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 인정진술에 대해 당연히 증거능력을 부여하는 논거는, ① 원진술을 한 사람이 피고인인 경우에는 그가 법정에 출석하여 있으므로 언제든지 증언대에서 증언하면서 인정진술에 대해 해명할 기회가 있다는 것, ② 자신이 한 말에 대해 책임져야 한다는 것, ③ 사람들이 어떤 말을 하는 것은 통상 그렇게 하는 것이 자신에게 유리하기 때문이므로, 인정진술이 불리한 증거로 제출되었을 때 피고인이 인정진술을 한 사유를 설명해야 할 최소한의 부담을 지는 것이 당사자주의적 공정성에 부합한다는 것이다. 따라서 미국에서는 피고인이 법정외에서 한 진술은 서면, 녹음물이나 녹화물 또는 ‘진술을 들은 사람(조사한 수사관을 포함함)의 증언’에 의해 법정에 현출될 수 있는 것이다. 여기서 서면, 녹음물이나 녹화물 또는 ‘진술을 들은 사람’은 법정외 진술을 법정으로 전달하는 수단에 불과하여 전문법칙과 무관하다. 공판중심주의를 취하는 경우에 왜 조서의 증거능력을 부인하여야 하는지 그 논리적 근거를 알 수 없다. 조서재판 때문에 공판중심주의가 실현되지 못한다는 불합리에 대해서는, 법정에서 충실히 사실심리를 함으로써 해결할 문제이지 조서의 증거사용을 금지하거나 제한하는 방식으로 해결할 것이 아니다. 인권침해에 대한 우려가 증거능력을 부정하는 사유라고 하면 인권침해를 방지할 방안을 찾으면 된다. 예컨대, 피의자신문 과정에서 녹음 내지 영상녹화가 이루어지거나, 변호인이 입회하는 등으로 인권침해가 발생하지 않았음이 증명된 경우에만 피의자신문조서의 증거능력을 인정하면 인권침해에 대한 우려는 제거된다. 인권침해가 있을지 모른다는 추상적인 가능성 때문에, 수사기관이 적법한 절차를 거쳐 작성한 공문서의 증거능력이 피고인에 의해 너무나 쉽게 부정되는 현재의 법은 타당하지 않다. 미국에서는 피의자신문조서가 증거로 사용되는 제도가 없다는 주장은 오해이다. 미란다원칙이 철저히 준수되므로 피의자가 진술거부권을 행사하는 경우가 많고, 수사기관은 조사과정에 입회하는 변호인에 의해 수사에 관한 불필요한 시비가 발생하는 것을 염려하여 피의자를 상대로 한 신문을 자제하며, 피의자가 그의 진술이 기재된 서면에 서명해주기를 꺼려하는 등의 이유 때문에 우리의 조서에 유사한 서면이 증거로 자주 이용되지 못하고 있을 뿐 미국에서 조서의 작성이 금지되거나 조서의 증거능력이 부정되는 것은 결코 아니다. 피고인이 사법경찰관이나 검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서에 관하여 내용을 부인하거나 진정성립을 부인하면 곧바로 그 조서의 증거능력을 부정하는 현재의 제도는 개선되어야 한다. This paper ponders on the question on how much a suspect’s interrogation transcript by an investigative agency be admitted as evidence in court. Those against the use of suspect’s interrogation transcript as evidence claim that the use of it goes against judiciary centered trial theory, infringes human rights when trying to get a confession, and that there is no system in the U.S. that allows the use of interrogation transcripts as evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence in the U.S. treats out-of-court statements or admissions by the accused as not hearsay, thus allowing the use of out-of-court statement by the accused as evidence without any restriction. Admission is granted admissibility unconditionally, the rationale of which is as follows. ① If the declarant of the admission is the accused, then he or she can always take the stand and use it as an opportunity to explain himself or herself. ② One must be responsible for one’s own statement. ③ People usually speak of things that is advantageous to them. Therefore, it is in accordance with Adversarial Fairness as the accused is least burdened when the accused’s admission is submitted as an unfavorable evidence. Consequently, any out-of-court statement by the accused may be introduced to court in the form of document, recording, videotape, or the testimony of whomever heard the statement(including the investigator). In this case, these are just means to deliver out-of-court statements to fact-finders in court, irrelevant to the hearsay rule. There is no logical reason to deny the admissibility of transcript when adhering to the judiciary centered trial theory. The criticism that judiciary centered trials cannot be achieved through trial by transcript can be solved by strictly sticking to fact finding trials in court, not by prohibiting or restricting the use of transcript. If concerns about the infringement of Human Rights are reason enough to not admit evidence, then it is imperative to find ways to prevent Human Rights infringement. For example, it would be possible to prove that there has been no violation of Human Rights during the interrogation of the accused by recording the process or by allowing interrogations only when accompanied by an attorney. If the suspect’s interrogation transcript is admissible only when it is clearly shown that there has been no infringement, then such concerns may be resolved. The current law which allows the accused to easily deny admissibility of official documents legitimately made by investigative agencies is problematic. The argument that there is no system in the U.S. that uses the suspect’s interrogation transcript as evidence is false. Although the accused frequently exercise their right to remain silent following the Miranda Rule, investigative agencies are reluctant to interrogate the accused fearing the attorney may file unnecessary complaints about it, and the accused usually avoid signing on transcripts with their statement which is similar to documents in Korea, transcripts can be used as evidence although not commonly utilized. The production of transcript is not prohibited in the U.S. and neither the admissibility of it is denied. The current system allows the accused to easily dismiss his or her transcript written by the interrogating police as evidence by denying the charged count. The accused may also argue that the written statement in the transcript by the district attorney are not his or her own words, achieving similar results. Such problems need to be addressed and improved.

실무연구(實務硏究) : 간통죄(姦通罪)와 고소(告訴)

최병천 ( Byung Chun Choi ) 법조협회 2004 法曹 Vol.53 No.11

간통죄에 있어서는 혼인이 해소되거나 이혼소송을 제기한 후가 아니면 고소할 수 없으며, 간통을 종용 또는 유서한 때에는 고소할 수 없는 등 다른 친고죄에서는 발견되지 않는 고소의 유효요건과 고소권의 제한이 있어 간통죄 고소에 특유한 문제점들이 존재한다. 간통죄 고소와 관련한 대법원의 판례 중 일부는 논리적인 부적절성을 비판받기도 하나, 고소가 부적법하다고 봄으로써 가능한 한 혼인생활을 유지하려고 하는 대법원의 태도가 옳다고 본다. 다만, 대법원은 이혼소송이 취하, 취하간주, 각하되면 간통 고소 역시 소급적으로 무효가 된다는 견해를 취하고 있으나, 이 경우 간통 고소가 그때부터 부적법해질 뿐 소급하여 무효로 되는 것은 아니라 할 것이다. 특히, 이혼소송의 소장각하는 원고의 의사와 무관하게 이루어진다는 점에서 소장각하에 따라 고소가 소급하여 무효로 되고 따라서 고소의 하자가 치유될 수 없다는 대법원의 견해는 수긍하기 어렵다.

공판조서와 피고인의 반대신문권 -일본과의 비교법적 고찰-

최병천 ( Byung Chun Choi ) 한국경찰법학회 2012 경찰법연구 Vol.10 No.2

Korean Criminal Procedure Law § 311 provides for unlimited admissibility for trial transcripts made by a trial court or an evidence collecting judge. The notion that statements before a court or a judge is trustworthy and the authentication of the transcript are regarded as the rationale for the admissibility. Dominant majority and judicial precedents view that § 311 applies only to the transcripts taken in the pending criminal trial for the defendant, so the transcripts made in proceedings other than the current criminal trial for the defendant fall within § 315 No. 3 ``the residual documents made under specially trustworthy circumstances``. The traditional theory summarized above leads to the simple conclusion that any trial transcript may be admitted according to either § 311 or § 315 No. 3. But trial transcripts should be treated discriminately in admissibility according to the difference of the statements contained therein, that is, whether it is a defendants` own statement or not, or performed under an oath and a cross-examination. Trial transcripts from other trials or proceedings, having present defendants never exercised their right to cross-examine, needs proper measures to guarantee the defendants` right before it is presented. Especially, when statements written on the transcripts are of non-defendants and made by them as a party in other proceedings or trials, the necessity for the opportunity for cross-examination is greater. All trial transcripts should be ruled by § 311, instead of § 315 No. 3, because they share the same characters. § 315 No. 3 provides for a category which contains the residual miscellaneous documents having nothing but ``made under specially trustworthy circumstances`` in common. Trial transcripts from other trials or proceedings does not procure the current defendants their right to cross-examine. Especially, such documents are significantly less reliable, when statements are made by a party who do not take an oath and a cross-examination by the other party are not conducted. To secure the right to cross-examination of present defendants, § 311 needs to be revised so that the transcripts on which the defendants have never been given the opportunity to cross-examine may be brought in, only when the declarant has been found unavailable, or he is present to be cross-examined.

형사변호사의 직업윤리

최병천 ( Byung Chun Choi ) 법과사회이론학회 2005 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.29

제주지역 풍력발전기에 의한 전력계통운영 영향분석

김영환(Kim Young-Hwan),최병천(Choi Byung-Chun),장시호(Jang Si-Ho),김세호(Kim Se-Ho),좌종근(Jwa Jong-Geun) 대한전기학회 2005 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2005 No.7

30kW 고정식 태양광발전시스템의 발전 특성 조사

문채주(Chae-Joo Moon),임정민(Joung-Min Lim),장영학(Young-Hak Chang),소순열(Soon-Youl So),최병천(Byung-Chun Choi) 대한전기학회 2008 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2008 No.7

Power Survey of 30㎾ Solar System without tracking mechanism

문채주(Chae-Joo Moon),임정민(Joung-Min Lim),장영학(Young-Hak Chang),소순열(Soon-Youl So),최병천(Byung-Chun Choi) 대한전기학회 2008 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2008 No.7(초록집)

랫드에 대한 KDRD-002 의 아급성경구독성시험

곽승준(Seung Jun Kwack),김형식(Hyung Sik Kim),이소영(So Young Lee),천선아(Sun Ah Chun),홍채영(Che Young Hong),한하수(Ha Su Han),최병천(Byung Chun Choi),이병무(Byung Mu Lee) 한국응용약물학회 1996 Biomolecules & Therapeutics(구 응용약물학회지) Vol.4 No.4

The subacute toxicity was investigated in Sprague-Dawley rats orally treated with KDRD-010 at the doses of 0.056, 0.28, and 1.4 g/㎏ for one month. There were no clinical signs and pathological changes compared with control group. Body weights were not significantly changed between control and treatment groups. In hematological and biochemical serum parameters, all mean values appear to be within the normal range. In pathological examinations, hemorrhages of lung was observed in one male rat at low dose group and one female rat at high dose group of KDRD-010, but it was not considered to be caused by KDRD-010. These results suggest that KDRD-010 dose not induce any significant subacute oral toxicities in Sprague-Dawley rats.