수사절차상 조사자증언의 증거능력에 대한 검토 = A Study on the Statement of Investigation Authorities in Criminal Procedure

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The statement of investigation authorities introduced in the revised 2007 Criminal Procedure Law was intended to root out the practice of dual investigation and further to develop a human-rights-friendly investigation culture within the police by diminishing the dominant authority of prosecutors. Nevertheless, in 5years since the revision of the law the statement of investigation authorities seems not to have been applied in practice so much as it was initially intended Whether to grant the admissibility of evidence to the statement of investigation authorities has been controversial depending on how to translate the trial-oriented court proceeding. Judicial precidents vary on a case-by-case basis: some accept the admissibility of evidence regarding the statement of investigation authorities, while others deny it Some hold a view that the unmittelbarkeitsprinzip via offense and defense in court and the statement of invwstigation authorities need be activated for defendants to aggressively defend themselves based on the police officer`s interrogation dossiers as in some foreign powers.39) Still, the statement of envestigation authorities cannot but be considered a legislative error on the ground that it is inconsistent with other regimes that have been enacted to ensure interrogatories are written in the course of investigation of suspects and to secure the legality and fairness. The police officer`s interrogation dossiers and the statement of onvestigation authorities are in effect identical. They differ from each other in terms of the presentation form only, leading to an irrational dual presentation of the evidence used for a judgment of guilt or innocence in a criminal trial. Acoordingly, apart from whether to accept the admissibility of evidence in regard of the police officer`s interrogation dossiers, it is not valid to grant the independent admissibility of evidence to the statement of investigation authorities. Also, given the current conditions where prosecutors and the police maintain superior-subordinate relationships, interviews before testimonies could compromise the independence and fairness of such testimonies. Yet, even when the admissibility of evidence is denied regarding the protocol of examination of a suspect, which is qualitatively identical to the statement of investigagion authorities, it may be used as the evidence for impeachment under certain conditions. To apply the statement of investigation authorities further in practice, transparency and credibility in the investigation stage is most important. However, in practice, lawyers are far from active participation and other issues including court-appointed lawyers in the interrogation of a suspect need be addressed. When any regime is hardly secured to guarantee transparency in investigation, the Article 316-1 stipulating that the admissibility of evidence should be granted to the statement of investigation authorities, which differs from the police officer`s interrogation dossiers in terms of the presentation form only, is an irrational enactment in light of the Article 312-3 of the law. Hence, adequate restrictions via strict interpretation are required although it is stipulated in the law.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 신동운, "효당 엄상섭 형사소송법논집" 서울대출판부 2005

2 이호중, "형사절차와 인권-사법제도개혁추진위원회의 형소법개정안을 중심으로-" 19 : 2006

3 조현욱, "형사소송법개정안에 나타난 전문증거의 문제점과 개선방안" 한국법학회 (23) : 443-460, 2006

4 대검찰청, "형사소송법 제정・개정 자료집" 2007

5 손동권, "형사소송법 개정신판" 세창출판사 2010

6 법원행정처, "형사소송법 개정법률 해설"

7 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2012

8 임동규, "형사소송법" 법문사 2010

9 신동운, "형법총론 제5판" 법문사 2010

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

11 千 鎭 豪, "피고인의 경찰 진술을 내용으로 하는 증언의 증거능력에 대한 재검토" 한국법학원 (84) : 221-232, 2005

12 이용식, "조사자증언제도에 대한 비판적 소고(小考)" 한국형사정책학회 24 (24): 299-319, 2012

13 류장만, "조사자 증언 제도 연구 - 미국 실태를 중심으로 -" 법조협회 57 (57): 293-350, 2008

14 변필건, "조사 경찰관에 의한 전문진술의 현출방법에 관한 비교법적 고찰" 2009

15 신동운, "제정형사소송법의 성립경위" 한국형사법학회 (22) : 159-221, 2004

16 신동운, "일제하의 예심제도에 관하여 – 그 제도적 기능을 중심으로-" 서울대학교 27 (27): 1986

17 심희기, "일제강점기 조서재판의 실태" 한국형사법학회 (25) : 331-354, 2006

18 배종대, "신형사소송법 제3판" 홍문사 2011

19 安 晟 秀, "미국 증거법상 전문법칙 및 수사단계에서의 진술 내지 조서의 증거능력" 한국법학원 (84) : 191-220, 2005

20 이완규, "공판중심주의를 둘러싼 개념상의 혼돈과 해결방향" 법조협회 54 (54): 19-62, 2005

21 하태훈, "검사작성의 피의자신문조서와 참고인진술조서의 증거능력" (14) : 2006

22 서보학, "개정형사소송법에 의한 수사조서 및 영상녹화물의 증거능력" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 161-195, 2008

23 정웅석, "개정 형사소송법의 평가와 향후과제" 한국법학원 (101) : 205-235, 2007

24 심재무, "개정 형사소송법상 조사자증언의 증거능력" 2009

25 李 完 揆, "被告人의 警察 陳述을 內容으로 하는 搜査警察官 證言의 證據能力" 한국법학원 (78) : 142-160, 2004

26 신양균, "憲法上 適法節次의 刑事訴訟法에서의 具現" 한국비교형사법학회 8 (8): 617-642, 2006

27 "http://www.lawtimes.co.kr/LawNews/News/NewsContents.aspx?serial=69887&kind"