피고인의 진술거부권과 형사소송법 제314조의 진술불능사유 - 대법원 2013.6.13. 선고 2012도16001 판결에 대한 평석- = A study on the defendant`s right to refuse to make statements and the grounds of the statement incapacity of § 314 of the criminal procedure

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this paper, we commented on target precedent by closely studying issue of ‘the defendant’s right to refuse to make statements and the grounds of the statement incapacity of § 314 of the criminal procedure``. The main contents of this paper are like below. First, viewed in light of revision object of § 314 of the criminal procedure, and regulations related to right to refuse to make statements, the situation when the defendant performs the right to refuse to make statements does not apply to ‘the times when it is impossible to make statement by other reasons accordingly`` of § 314 of the criminal procedure. Additionally the issue of the target precedent is the meaning of ’the times when it is impossible to make statement by other reasons accordingly``, and whether the situation when the defendant performs the right to refuse to make statements is applied to ‘the times when it is impossible to make statement by other reasons accordingly`` of § 314 of the criminal procedure. Second, the grounds of the statement incapacity of § 314 of the criminal procedure means ‘the one who requires statement in pretrial procedure or a fixed day for public trial is unable to make statement by death, illness, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, and the times when it is impossible to make statement by other reasons accordingly``. This also accords with the comparative law review result with foreign legislation, like American, German, and Japanese law. Additionally. ‘the times when it is impossible to make statement by other reasons accordingly’ should be interpreted, limited to situations when it is objectively, and physically impossible to make statements, like in situation of death, illness, foreign residence, and unknown whereabouts, also in situations when person making a statement is missing or is an amnesiac or is unable to make statement due to the shock from the harm. Third, there is no precedent on defining whether defendant pursuing right to refuse to make statements falls under ‘the times when it is impossible to make statement by other reasons accordingly`` of § 314 of the criminal procedure and the reference discussing this case is nonexistent. However, when viewed in light of the perspective that ‘the times when it is impossible to make statement by other reasons accordingly`` should be limited to the stated examples of situations when it is objectively, and physically impossible to make statements like death, illness, foreign residence, and unknown whereabouts, the perspective that the exclusive rule of hearsay should be interpreted restrictedly as possible, revision objective of § 314 of the criminal procedure trying to intensify the elements grounding on principle of direct trial and principle of concerned public trial, target precedent ruling that when the defendant performs the right to refuse to make statements is no relevant to ‘the times when it is impossible to make statement by other reasons accordingly`` of § 314 of the criminal procedure. is proper. To conclude, target precedent as the first ruling on ``the times when it is impossible to make statement by other reasons accordingly`` of § 314 can be evaluated as ``another turning point for heading towards procedure of criminal cases of a country governed by law``. By the target precedent, when the defendant refuses to make statement on the paper that the defendant filled out, the way to accept admissibility of evidence in nature was caused to be fundamentally closed. However, situation of such is to be born to guarantee the fundamental human rights of the public in the procedure of criminal cases in a country governed by law and the investigative agency should find way in solving this problem by using scientific investigation.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김희옥, "형사판례연구 [2]" 박영사 1994

2 김희균, "형사증거법의 재조명(I): 전문법칙과 불일치진술" 법학연구소 14 (14): 365-389, 2013

3 김정한, "형사소송에서 디지털증거의 조사방법에 관한 입법론적 고찰-특히 민사소송의 경우와 비교하여-" 한국비교형사법학회 14 (14): 49-72, 2012

4 김정한, "형사소송법상 특신상태의 의미와 개념 요소 및 판단기준에 관한 소고" 한국비교형사법학회 16 (16): 153-182, 2014

5 손동권, "형사소송법 개정신판" 세창출판사 2010

6 법원행정처, "형사소송법 개정법률 해설"

7 이은모, "형사소송법" 박영사 2012

8 신현주, "형사소송법" 박영사 2002

9 심재무, "피의자진술의 법정현출방식과 조사자증언의 증거능력" 한국비교형사법학회 12 (12): 307-331, 2010

10 민철기, "피고인이 증거서류의 진정성립을 묻는 검사의 질문에 대하여 진술을 거부한 경우가 형사소송법 제314조의 ‘그 밖에 이에 준하는 사유로 인하여 진술할 수 없는 때’에 해당하는지 여부" (96) : 2013

11 변종필, "증언번복 진술조서의 증거능력" 2 (2): 2000

12 박흥모, "증언거부와 전문법칙의 예외" 7 : 2013

13 차정인, "전문법칙 적용범위 논의를 위한 몇 가지 고찰 - 기본 개념과 용어, 이론적 근거를 중심으로 -" 중앙법학회 16 (16): 97-155, 2014

14 주광일, "우리나라 형사소송법상의 전문법칙" 28 (28): 1979

15 이재상, "신형사소송법" 박영사 2007

16 배종대, "신형사소송법" 홍문사 2013

17 권오걸, "변호사의 증언거부권 행사와형사소송법 제314조의 진술불능사유" 법조협회 62 (62): 98-132, 2013

18 박용철, "변호사가 의뢰인에게 작성해 준 의견서가 압수된 경우 그 의견서의 증거능력 - 대법원 2012. 5. 17. 2009도6788 판결 -" 한국형사법학회 24 (24): 335-362, 2012

19 법원행정처, "법원실무제요, 형사(Ⅱ)" 2008

20 조기영, "미국법상 형사증거개시제도에 관한 고찰 - 몇 가지 쟁점에 대한 비교법적 시사점 -" 한국비교형사법학회 10 (10): 541-568, 2008

21 김희균, "미국법 상 전문법칙의 최근 동향 : 공판중심주의의 문제" 한국형사법학회 20 (20): 225-244, 2008

22 이호중, "국가보안법 사건에서 전문법칙의 적용 문제– 왕재산사건 제1심 판결에 나타난 전문법칙의 적용범위에 대한 비평" 민주주의법학연구회 (49) : 41-70, 2012

23 이창섭, "공범에 대한 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 소고(小考)" 한국비교형사법학회 12 (12): 125-150, 2010

24 신동운, "간추린 신형사소송법" 법문사 2008

25 정웅석, "傳聞法則의 適用範圍" 법학연구원 13 (13): 125-152, 2003

26 Claus Roxin, "Strafverfahrensrecht" 1995

27 STEVE EMANUEL, "EVIDENCE" 2001

28 Paul Roberts, "Criminal Evidence" 2004

29 RICHARD O. LEMPART, "A MODERN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE" 2000