This article analyzes the challenges of criminal evidence law from the perspective of substantively realizing the constitutional principle of equality of arms, focusing on the Quasi-Evidence Theory, which reconceptualizes materials collected by privat...
This article analyzes the challenges of criminal evidence law from the perspective of substantively realizing the constitutional principle of equality of arms, focusing on the Quasi-Evidence Theory, which reconceptualizes materials collected by private investigators as a new evidentiary category. The current criminal justice system is structurally unbalanced due to the State’s monopoly over evidence formation, resulting in a fundamental infringement of the defendant’s procedural self-determination derived from Article 10 of the Constitution.
To address this imbalance, the article proposes redefining lawful fact-finding activities conducted by private investigators as quasi-public procedural acts and institutionalizing their outputs as Quasi-Evidence. This framework is constitutionally grounded in Roxin’s Principle of Responsibility and Tribe’s Process Value Theory, while the probative value of investigative materials is controlled through a Standard for Procedural Reliability Review. Furthermore, drawing on Kelsen’s Grundnorm theory, the article clarifies the normative status of the Quasi-Evidence Theory and presents concrete legislative proposals, including the introduction of a Public Defender Investigator System and Article 318-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Ultimately, this study presents the Quasi-Evidence Theory as a practical model for transforming the criminal justice paradigm into a new constitutional order in which procedural equality is substantively achieved.