개정 형사소송법 상 번복 증언과 불일치 진술의 증거능력

김희균 대검찰청 2009 형사법의 신동향 Vol.18 No.-

영미법 상 불능의 항변

김희균 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2014 서울법학 Vol.22 No.2

Criminal attempt is criminal act so the actor should be punished even though, sometimes, it is possible to lessen his criminal liability. As is regulated in the Korean Criminal Law(hereinafter “Law) Article 25. It states that “(1) When an intended crime is not completed or if the intended result does not occur, it shall be punishable as an attempted crime” and that “(2) [t]he punishment for attempted crime may be mitigated than that of consummated crime.”Among criminal attempts, there are different kinds which are not governed by the above rule, and that is called “impossible attempt.” Article 27 of the Law provides that “[e]ven though the occurrence of a crime is impossible because of the means adopted for the commission of the crime or because of mistake of objects, the punishment shall be imposed if there has been a resulting danger, but the punishment may be mitigated or remitted.” In other words, impossible criminal attempt must be punished by the society because of its dangerousness. Traditionally, in the Common Law, impossible attempts are divided into two groups: one is factually impossible attempts and the other legally impossible attempts. These two groups of impossibility defense may be raised by the defendant but the court exempts only legally impossible acts. Therefore there is an established rule, regarding impossibility defense, that law forgives legal impossibility but not factual impossibility. Article 27 of the law does not distinguish these two defenses and just states that “the punishment [for impossible criminal attempts] may be mitigated or remitted.” The purpose of this article is thus to think about any possibility that a defense of legal impossibility is also applicable in reading the Article. 영미법 상 사실적 불능과 법률적 불능의 구별론을 검토해 보면, 몇 가지 깨닫게 되는 게 있다. 첫째, 결과 발생이 불가능한 경우에도 어떤 행위자는 처벌할 필요가 있고, 어떤 행위자는 처벌할 필요가 없다. 혹은 그렇게 보인다. 영미법에서는 이를 사실적 불능과 법률적 불능으로 구별한다. 반면에 우리 논의에서는 구체적 위험과 추상적 위험으로 나누어서 검토해 보았다. 둘째, 추상적 위험과 구체적 위험이라는 구별법에 따라 처벌을 달리할지 여부에 대해서는 의견이 분분하다. 그러자는 견해도 있고, 그러지 말자는 견해도 있다. 둘 다 일리가 있다. 구체적으로 위험한 행위와 추상적으로 위험한 행위에 대한 평가는 형법에 대한 이해와도 맞닿아 있다. 특히 추상적으로 위험한 행위는 행위자의 계획이 위험했던 것이지 결과는 별로 위험하지 않다고 봐서, 무죄를 선언하거나 형 면제를 선언할 수도 있다고 본다. 영미법 상 법률적 불능과 그런 면에서 통하는 점이 있다. 셋째, 그렇다면 우리가 영미법에서 본 사실적 불능과 법률적 불능의 구별법과 구체적 위험, 추상적 위험의 구별법이 이름만 다르지 사실은 같은 구별법이라고 볼 수 있을까. 그럴 거라고 믿고 이 연구를 시작했다. 결과 발생이 불가능하지만 위험성이 있는 행위를 둘로 나누어 가벌, 불가벌로 처벌 수위를 달리한 거라면, 영미에서 보는 시각과 우리가 보는 시각이 결국은 같은 게 아닐까 라고 생각한 것이다.

현대 복식에 나타난 포스트모더니즘 양식 연구 -90년대 후반 복식을 중심으로-

김희균 韓國衣類學會 2005 한국의류학회지 Vol.29 No.3,4

2015년 미연방증거규칙

김희균,대검찰청 검찰미래기획단 번역 대검찰청 2015 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.48

CCTV를 본 증인의 진술의 증거능력

김희균 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2012 서울법학 Vol.20 No.1

Suppose that there was a witness who had seen a crime scene through CCTV. Even though he was too far from the crime scene, it may be said that he has eye-witnessed the crime as it was. It is just as to say that a witness may be regarded as having seen the crime scene through a telescope. Watching an accident through real-time CCTV is not different from eye-witnessing it. How about watching a recorded tape in a CCTV? In our case, police officers and the CCTV operator could not eye-witness the crime in real time. They rewound a video-tape and identified the offender in it. If the prosecution called them as witnesses in a public trial and they reported to the court what they have seen in that CCTV, must be their statements considered a hearsay statement? Is it applicable the rule against hearsay to them?The rule against hearsay is a rule handling a statement, which must be based on the statement of a hearsay declarant regarding material facts in issue. In other words, there must be two kinds of statements in the situation where the rule against hearsay operates. One is the statement of witness, the other is that of a out-of-court declarant. In consequence, the statement of a witness having watched a recorded tape of CCTV is not hearsay in nature because it is not based on another statement. 우리 법이 전문법칙을 선언하고 있다고 해서, 미국 법상 전문법칙의 개념 정의나 해석론 등에 크게 괘념할 필요는 없다. 전문법칙이 미국 법의 전유물이 아니기 때문이다. 하지만 최소한 우리 식의 전문법칙을 주장하기에 앞서 전문증거가 왜 문제가 되는지에 대해서는 미국 법이든 영국 법이든, 여러 텍스트를 참조하면서 생각해 볼 필요가 있다. 본 판례분석에서는 후퍼의 법칙을 참조해서 전문증거가 왜 문제가 되는지를 살펴보았다. 그 결과 전문증거는 본질적으로 진술이며, 그 진술의 신용성을 반대신문을 통해서 높일 수 없기 때문에 전문증거는 원칙적으로 증거능력이 없다는 점을 확인할 수 있었다. 하지만 법제에 따라서는 전문증거임에도 불구하고 폭넓게 예외를 인정할 수도 있다. 우리 법이나 미국 법이 그런 경우다. 또, 전문법칙 자체를 느슨하게 적용할 수도 있다. 영국 법이 그런 경우다. 하지만 법제가 아무리 달라지고 전문법칙을 대하는 태도가 아무리 달라져도, 진술을 포함하고 있지 않은 CCTV에 진술이 포함되어 있다고 주장하고, 그 CCTV에도 전문법칙이 적용된다고 말할 수는 없다.

형사증거법의 재조명Ⅱ : 크로포드 이후 전문법칙의 미래

김희균 韓國刑事法學會 2013 刑事法硏究 Vol.25 No.1

Why do we conduct a comparative research on the subject of law or legal principles? I believe that is because we would like to understand to which point we are going to in comparison with other developed nations. If we find out that we are proven to be more effective in protecting a criminal defendant's rights than others, we will have a chance of giving some guidance to them. However, if we are far behind of them, we have to try to change our practices and reality for keeping pace with them. In 1961, we have imported the rule against hearsay to our criminal procedure law which was known to be based upon civil law system. That is because we wanted to ameliorate our criminal justice system by introducing one of key adversarial factors developed in the common law tradition. Some commentator have even boasted the fact that we have promulgated the rule against hearsay for the benefits of a criminal defendant. 'We guarantee the Confrontational right or cross-examination opportunity to all the defendants.' They said that we did our best for a fair trial by excluding some testimonial evidence which was gathered in ex parte situation. However, as a matter of fact, the rule that we have imported and kept continuously is not a rule worth of adoration. It is “an old-fashioned crazy quilt made of patches cut from a group of paintings by cubists, futurists and surrealists.” Moreover, it does not guarantee the fairness in a criminal processing because there are so many exceptions to it. Thus, the Supreme Court of America has begun to re-consider why the rule had been established by conducting a comparative research between the past and the present. The final report of it is Crawford v. Washington.

국민참여재판에서의 대질신문권

김희균 서울대학교 법학연구소 2009 서울대학교 法學 Vol.50 No.4

For a couple of centuries, our belief has been that the right of confrontation was imported from England to the United States with the rule against hearsay. They have served as great tools for the criminal defendant who wanted to cross- examine adverse witnesses summoned to the trial. However, it is also true, until recently, that practitioners and commentators have been more interested in analysing the rule against hearsay than the confrontation clause, because the former was much more flexible in reading and applying to the real world. The result is that we now find a lot of hearsay exceptions in our criminal process code including those regarding various types of dossiers made by law enforcement personnel. Furthermore, we easily mislead the meaning of the confrontation right as a right to simply cross-examine a witness not at the time of testifying but sometime after giving his testimony. In a real trial, fact-finders are supposed to encounter a bundle of dossiers and witnesses who already talked about what they had seen in the crime scene in other process and now are ready to give some different versions of it. Nonetheless, a professional judge can draw a meaningful conclusion from these confusing pieces of evidence because it is his work. However, single jurors who do not have any experience of handling fraudulent statements will not be able to sort out and assess exactly different versions of the testimony. Thus it is really required to simplify the process of witness-examination by guaranteeing the right to confront with witnesses before jurors to the defendant. 배심재판에서는 중요 참고인의 법정에서의 증언 내용이 유⋅무죄를 가리는 핵심 증거가 된다. 따라서 “전문증거인 증거서류가 아니라 원본증거인 증인신문이 원칙적인 입증방법이라고 할 것이고, 최초의 증거신청 단계부터 진술조서가 아닌 증인신문을 신청하도록” 해야 한다. 그것이 배심재판의 본령에 부합한다. 그럼에도 우리뿐만 아니라 미국의 증거규칙도 사후적으로 반대신문 기회를 보장하면서, 법정에서 최초로 수집하지 않는 증거에 증거능력을 부여했다. 그게 바로 반대신문과 대질신문을 같은 것으로 보는 종전의 견해였다. 명칭은 종전의 견해라고 하지만, 사실은 최근까지도 이런 견해에 따라서 대질신문권 조항이 해석되어 왔으며, 크로포드 판결이 그런 태도를 대표한다. 반면에, 새로운 견해는 1932년 매톡스 판결을 대질신문권의 본령으로 읽고 재해석하는 경향을 대표하며, 그 요지는 미국 헌법 제정 당시의 순수한 배심재판으로 돌아가자는 것이다. 오늘날 미국의 증거규칙은 “정치적 타협의 산물”로 순수성을 잃었다는 것은 주지의 사실이다. 피고인과 증인이 대질하여 첨예하게 다투던 재판에서 좀더 편한 재판으로 진화하는 과정에서 생겨난 게 각종 전문법칙의 예외고, 반대신문의 형해화다. 이미 공판 이전에서 진술할 것을 다했는데, 지금 뒤늦게 반대신문을 해 봐야 무슨 효과가 있을까. 게다가 반대신문 자체만 해도 허점이 많은 장치다. “증인은 배심원이 전혀 모르는 사람”이며, 대질 상태에서 뚫어지게 쳐다봐도, 진실이 뭔지 일반인인 배심원들은 잘 모를 수 있다. 그런데, 문제를 훨씬 더 복잡하게 만드는 게 바로 증인의 종전의 진술이다. 지금 말하는 것은 이거고, 종전에 말한 것은 이건데, 그 가운데 하나를 골라 심증을 형성하라는 복잡한 주문을, 최소한 배심원들에게 할 수는 없다.

국민참여재판에서 평결의 성립과 효력에 관한 문제점

김희균 성신여자대학교 법학연구소 2010 성신법학 Vol.- No.9

The Korean Constitution states that we all have the right to trial by the judges. Thus, some scholars have insisted that, for introducing the jury trial in Korea, we needed to first of all amend the Constitutional provision. Otherwise, it will be unconstitutional to indict a criminal defendant to the jury trial. The reformers have been forced to accept several measures which would overcome the opposition based on the Consitutional principle. One is to make the jury an institution which is supposed to give its opinion not its verdict. And the other is to ensure that the defendant may appeal the decisions made by jurors and trial judges in the district courts. The result is that we have an extremely unstable jury trial system. We may not call it as a participation trial because jurors are not really entitled to participate in decision-making process. The basic principle is that, both in England and the States, it is the jury's role to find the facts regarding crimes. If a specific jury produced a verdict, the appellate court should respect the jury's finding and its reviewing power should be limited to the sufficiency of the evidence with which jury has formed its verdict, not the weight of evidence. Nonetheless, in the Act of the Korean Participation Criminal Trial, there is not any guidelines about the standards that the appellate court may consult in deciding whether the trial court's conclusion is legitimate or not.

디지털 기술을 활용한 국립공원 내 비지정문화유산 관리 - 경주 남산 지암곡 제4사지 마애선각입상 조사 및 분석을 중심으로-

김희균 한국고고학회 2024 한국고고학전국대회 발표문 Vol.48 No.-

The Korean Hearsay Rule and the Protocol

김희균 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2010 Journal of Korean Law Vol.10 No.1

Later in the course of the democratic reformation of the justice system, the Judiciary, supported by the civil rights groups and a majority of the legislators, tried to limit prosecutorial and police power. More precisely, they opposed the “dossier-building” practice in the pre-trial stage that the prosecutor dominates. Thus they decided to control it. The best way would be to deny protocols’ admissibility and to encourage the parties to offer more live testimonies. The rule against hearsay basically guarantees this paradigm shift. The amendment also opened the way for calling those who heard the suspects’ statements’. But trial judges prefer to read protocols in office in preparation for trials. The videotape is not even in the list of substantial evidence. Certainly, the protocols containing PIS have lost their authoritative voice. They must have been prepared properly, be reliable, genuine, correct, and made in a particularly reliable situation. Furthermore, the testifier must be available for cross-examination from a defense counsel. All these requirements make the prosecution increasingly more dependent on protocols made with suspect parties’ admissions. The most popular evidence still seems to be a protocol with party admission. Videotapes are prepared for supporting its admissibility not for substantial evidence. In the Korean criminal process, this sort of protocol itself flows as if it is something that reveals the truth. Roughly speaking, the Korean criminal process is similar to that of the French one of which Professor Langbein has given an interesting description.