2000년대 초기 대법원판례의 동향: 수사절차와 증거 관련 대법원 판례를 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

After 2000, the Supreme Court of Korea did not follow just its former rulings in some criminal procedure cases. Rather the Court has chosen to underscore due process in the Korean Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act and proceed to present more strict standards on usual practices. And in the first decade of the 21st century, the National Assembly, the Court, the Prosecutors' Office, and the academic circles have continually exerted influence over one another. As a result, the Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2007 and took effect on and after Jan. 1, 2008. In this article, some supreme court cases in the criminal procedure are reviewed. These cases involve the exclusionary rule, the right to counsel, the admissibility of statements, and digital evidence, which are related to the revise of the Act or the change of practical routines. The revised Act introduced the exclusionary rule to the criminal justice system. The Court refused to apply the rule to the illegally obtained physical evidence. But it changed the former rulings in Supreme Court 2007. 11. 15. 2007do3061 and held that, in principle, the exclusionary rule and the fruit of Poisonous Tree doctrine should be applied to physical evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure which violated the process of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act. In Supreme Court 2011. 5. 26. 2009mo1190, the Court affirmed the courts' practice which made a limitation on the executive way of search and seizure warrant by the additional notes. And that ruling led the newly establishment of the article 106 ③ of the revised Act. In November 2003, the Supreme Court of Korea held that a suspect in custody had the right to counsel during interrogation. And in September 2004, the Constitutional Court of Korea determined to confer the right to counsel on a suspect without custody. After these decisions, the Criminal Procedure Act had an explicit provision for the right in 2007. On the other hand, the Court had maintained its rulings that if the formal authenticity of the statements by a suspect in the protocol of prosecutor is affirmed, the substantial authenticity of the statements was presumed and might be admissible. But the Court changed its former rulings in Supreme Court en banc 2004. 12. 16. 2002do537 and held that the substantial authenticity may also be affirmed only by an admission of the author. And in case of digital evidence, the Court has told that digital evidence may be admissible only if it falls under the hearsay exceptions where it is testimonial.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서 론
• Ⅱ. 수사절차
• 1. 위법수집증거배제법칙
• 2. 압수수색
• 3. 피의자신문시 변호인참여권
• 4. 임의동행의 적법요건
• Ⅲ. 증 거
• 1. 전문법칙의 예외
• 2. 디지털 증거의 증거능력
• Ⅳ. 결 론
• [참고판례]
• [Abstract]

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "헌법재판소 2004. 9. 23. 선고 2000헌마138 결정"

2 "대법원 2011. 7. 14. 선고 2011도3809 판결"

3 "대법원 2011. 6. 30. 선고 2009도6717 판결"

4 "대법원 2011. 5. 26.자 2009모1190 결정"

5 "대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2009도10412 판결"

6 "대법원 2011. 4. 14. 선고 2010도13583 판결"

7 "대법원 2011. 1. 27. 선고 2010도11030 판결"

8 "대법원 2010. 6. 24. 선고 2010도5040 판결"

9 "대법원 2010. 4. 15. 선고 2010도1107 판결"

10 "대법원 2010. 3. 11. 선고 2009도14525 판결"

11 "대법원 2009. 8. 20. 선고 2008도8213 판결"

12 "대법원 2009. 7. 9. 선고 2009도2865 판결"

13 "대법원 2009. 3. 12. 선고 2008도11437 판결"

14 "대법원 2009. 11. 26. 선고 2009도6602 판결"

15 "대법원 2008. 9. 25. 선고 2008도6985 판결"

16 "대법원 2008. 7. 10. 선고 2007도7760 판결"

17 "대법원 2008. 2. 28. 선고 2007도10004 판결"

18 "대법원 2008. 2. 14. 선고 2005도4202 판결"

19 "대법원 2008. 11. 13. 선고 2006도2556 판결"

20 "대법원 2008. 10. 23. 선고 2008도7471 판결"

21 "대법원 2008. 10. 23. 선고 2008도2826 판결"

22 "대법원 2007. 7. 26. 선고 2007도3219 판결"

23 "대법원 2007. 6. 28. 선고 2005도8317 판결"

24 "대법원 2007. 12. 13. 선고 2007도7257 판결"

25 "대법원 2007. 11. 15. 선고 2007도3061 전원합의체 판결"

26 "대법원 2007. 10. 25. 선고 2007도6129 판결"

27 "대법원 2007. 1. 11. 선고 2006도7228 판결"

28 "대법원 2006. 7. 6. 선고 2005도6810 판결"

29 "대법원 2006. 7. 27. 선고 2006도3194 판결"

30 "대법원 2006. 4. 14. 선고 2005도9561 판결"

31 "대법원 2006. 12. 8. 선고 2005도9730 판결"

32 "대법원 2006. 1. 13. 선고 2003도6548 판결"

33 "대법원 2005. 8. 19. 선고 2005도2617 판결"

34 "대법원 2005. 6. 10. 선고 2005도1849 판결"

35 "대법원 2005. 3. 10. 선고 2004도8493 판결"

36 "대법원 2005. 11. 25. 선고 2005도5831 판결"

37 "대법원 2005. 1. 14. 선고 2004도6646 판결"

38 "대법원 2004. 7. 15. 선고 2003도7185 전원합의체 판결"

39 "대법원 2004. 3. 11. 선고 2003도171 판결"

40 "대법원 2004. 12. 16. 선고 2002도537 전원합의체 판결"

41 "대법원 2004. 1. 16. 선고 2003도5693 판결"

42 "대법원 2003. 11. 11. 선고 2003모402 결정"

43 "대법원 2003. 10. 10. 선고 2003도3282 판결"

44 "대법원 2002. 8. 23. 선고 2002도2112 판결"

45 "대법원 2002. 11. 26. 선고 2000도1513 판결"

46 "대법원 2002. 10. 22. 선고 2000도5461 판결"

47 "대법원 2001. 9. 28. 선고 2001도4091 판결"

48 "대법원 2001. 5. 29. 선고 2000도2933 판결"

49 "대법원 2001. 3. 27. 선고 2000도4383 판결"

50 "대법원 2001. 3. 23. 선고 2000도486 판결"

51 "대법원 2001. 10. 9. 선고 2001도3106 판결"

52 "대법원 2000. 7. 28. 선고 2000도2617 판결"

53 "대법원 2000. 6. 15. 선고 99도1108 전원합의체 판결"

54 "대법원 2000. 3. 10. 선고 2000도159 판결"

55 "대법원 1999. 9. 3. 선고 99도2317 판결"

56 "대법원 1996. 5. 14. 선고 96초88 결정"

57 "대법원 1995. 5. 12. 선고 95도484 판결"

58 "대법원 1994. 2. 8. 선고 93도3318 판결"

59 "대법원 1990. 10. 16. 선고 90도1474 판결"

60 "대법원 1987. 6. 23. 선고 87도705 판결"

61 "대법원 1984. 6. 26. 선고 84도748 판결"

62 "대법원 1968. 9. 17. 선고 68도932 판결"