한국과 중국 법원의 위법수집증거배제법칙 적용에 관한 비교법적 검토

김재중,진가 한양법학회 2019 漢陽法學 Vol.30 No.2

The evidence collected based on the illegal procedure is referred to as “improperly or illegally obtained evidence” and the issue of Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence is about whether such evidence is accepted or not. In accordance with common law of the United States, the Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence denies the evidence and secondary evidence obtained from the illegal investigation to prevent such evidence from utilized as the evidence of guilt. This study reviews on how Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence is applied on courts of South Korea and China, find issues to be addressed in china, and find improvement measures. The conclusions are as follows. First, Chinese court should make a legal organization by introducing investigation without physical detention, right to remain silent, warrant system, and participation of attorney during questioning of suspect to create the environment where Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence can be applied. Secondly, it’s hard to understand and identify the position of Supreme People’s Court toward Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence. Thus, there should be further researches on judicial precedents and establish unified precedent system in Supreme Court and local courts to acknowledge the legal binding force of the precedent from the local court in the similar case. Based on such legal binding force, Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence will be rooted well. Third, Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence is limitedly applied on serious crimes such as murder, injury, rape, or drug in China. Thus, Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence should be applied on the minor crimes to guarantee the human rights of the defendant. Fourth, the admissibility of evidence is limited based on the Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence. Since the exclusionary rule is applied on verbal evidence, the detailed application scope and criteria should be suggested on non-verbal evidence. Fifth, Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence is merely a compelled confession rule in China. Thus, Confession Requiring Corroborating Evidence should be introduced together to protect the defendant in the forced confession by the investigative institute.

한국과 중국의 위법수집증거배제법칙에 관한 비교법적 검토

김재중,진가 원광대학교 한중관계연구원 2019 韓中關係硏究 Vol.5 No.2

위법한 절차에 의하여 수집된 증거를 위법수집증거라고 하고, 이러한 위법수집증거 의 증거능력을 인정할 것인지 여부에 관한 논의가 바로 위법수집증거배제법칙에 관한 문제이다. 미국 대법원 판례를 통해 발전한 위법수집증거배제법칙은 위법수사로 인하 여 획득한 증거와 그 증거를 원인으로 하여 얻어진 2차적 증거들에 대하여 증거능력을 부인함으로써 유죄의 증거로 삼을 수 없도록 하는 원칙이라고 일반적으로 이해되고 있다. 한국과 중국 양국의 위법수집증거배제법칙에 대한 쟁점을 살펴보면 중국에서 향후 보완되어야 할 문제점을 쉽게 찾아 볼 수 있다. 첫째, 위법수집증거배제법칙에 대한 중국 최고인민법원의 입장이 무엇인지 제대로 이해하고 파악할 수 없는 어려움이 있으므로 향후 고급법원을 포함한 지방법원의 판례 에 대한 연구를 강화하고 통일적인 판례체계를 구축함으로써 유사한 사건에서 지방법 원 판례의 기속력을 인정해야 이 원칙의 작동이 원활하게 뿌리내릴 수 있을 것이다. 둘째, 중국에서 위법수집증거배제법칙 적용대상 사건범위가 주로 살인, 상해, 강도, 강간, 마약 등 중대 범죄에 한해서 적용되고 있기 때문에 향후 피고인의 인권보장을 위하여 경미한 범죄에도 위 원칙이 적용되어야 할 것이다. 셋째, 중국에서 위법수집증거배제법칙에 의해 증거능력을 부정하는 범위가 제한되 어 있다. 즉 이 원칙이 진술증거에 한해서 적용되고 있기 때문에 비진술증거에도 구체 적 적용범위와 판단기준을 제시하여야 할 것이다. 넷째, 중국에서 위법수집증거배제법칙은 사실상 강요에 의한 자백배제법칙에 지나 지 않기 때문에 자백의 보강법칙을 함께 도입하여야 수사기관의 자백강요로부터 피고 인을 지킬 수 있을 것이다. The evidence collected based on the illegal procedure is referred to as “improperly or illegally obtained evidence” and the issue of Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence is about whether such evidence is accepted or not. In accordance with common law of the United States, the Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence denies the evidence and secondary evidence obtained from the illegal investigation to prevent such evidence from utilized as the evidence of guilt. This study reviews on how Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence is applied on courts of South Korea and China, find issues to be addressed in china, and find improvement measures. The conclusions are as follows. Chinese court should make a legal organization by introducing investigation without physical detention, right to remain silent, warrant system, and participation of attorney during questioning of suspect to create the environment where Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence can be applied. First, it’s hard to understand and identify the position of Supreme People’s Court toward Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence. Thus, there should be further researches on judicial precedents and establish unified precedent system in Supreme Court and local courts to acknowledge the legal binding force of the precedent from the local court in the similar case. Based on such legal binding force, Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence will be rooted well. Secondly, Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence is limitedly applied on serious crimes such as murder, injury, rape, or drug in China. Thus, Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence should be applied on the minor crimes to guarantee the human rights of the defendant. Third, the admissibility of evidence is limited based on the Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence. Since the exclusionary rule is applied on verbal evidence, the detailed application scope and criteria should be suggested on non-verbal evidence. Fourth, Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence is merely a compelled confession rule in China. Thus, Confession Requiring Corroborating Evidence should be introduced together to protect the defendant in the forced confession by the investigative institute.

위법수집증거배제법칙의 도입과 피해자의 지위

이윤제(Lee, Yun-Je) 한국피해자학회 2009 被害者學硏究 Vol.17 No.2

The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The exclusionary rule enforces this constitutional provision by excluding from the trial of a case any evidence that has been obtained by the government through means which violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule operates as a bar to the use of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. The US courts have been reluctant to impose exclusion as a judicial remedy for a violation of a federal statute or regulation, or a Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The revised Code of Korean Criminal Procedure introduced the exclusionary rule of the US to the criminal justice system where Korean Supreme Court has been refusing to apply the rule to the material evidence which is obtained by the illegal search or seizure of the government. It provides that the evidence which is obtained by violating due process of law shall not be admitted. The admission of the evidence, in Korea, depends on whether the government followed the due process of law while the evidence that has been secured by violation of the constitutional right shall be excluded in US. In addition, the Korean Supreme Court recently ruled that, in principle, the exclusionary rule should be applied to the material evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure process which did not follow the Korean Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law. After all, there is a chance that the slight violation of the Criminal Procedure Code by investigative agents would result in the violation of due process of law and exclusion in Korean courts under the Korean Supreme Court's ruling. I disagree with this decision of Korean Supreme Court because this ruling did not deeply considered the one of the goals in criminal procedure-the discovery of the truth. The standard of the exclusionary rule must be whether the illegality of government's violation is substantial or serious considering the spirit of due process of law. It was the minor opinion of that Supreme Court's ruling. The exclusionary rule applies only to governmental action, not to private action. However, the evidence which is illegally obtained by the private person may be denied admission to the court through balancing test where the court decides the defendant's privacy is more important than public interest including the victim's damage.

위법수집증거의 증거능력에 관한 소고

조규태 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2006 法學論叢 Vol.16 No.-

위법수집증거배제법칙은 위법한 절차에 의하여 수집된 증거의 증거능력을 부정하는 법칙, 즉 범죄사실을 증명할 수 있는 증거라도 그 수집방법의 위법성을 이유로 증거능력을 인정하지 않는 증거법칙을 말한다. 국가형별권 실현의 목표로서 객관적 진실의 규명을 꾀한다고 하더라도 그 수단과 절차는 법공동체의 기본적 법적 확신인 기본권 존중과 공평성의 요청에 벗어나지 않아야 한다는 의미이다. 따라서 형사재판에 있어서는 오로지 실체적 진실이 발견되는 것으로서 만족하여서는 안되고 공정한 절차에 의하여 진상이 해명되어야 한다는 적정절차의 요청이 충족되어야 하고, 따라서 위법한 절차에 의하여 수집된 증거는 사실인정에 사용되어서는 안된다. 한편 위법수집증거의 배제는 위법수사를 방지·억제하기 위한 가장 유효한 방법이라고 볼 수 있다. 증거의 배제는 그러한 위법한 증거수집활동 그 자체를 문제로 하여, 위법한 수사활동에 이르게 하는 동기를 제거함으로써 위법수사에 대한 억지기능을 효과적으로 다할 수 있다. 즉 수사기관의 강제처분에는 영장주의를 원칙으로 한다든가, 수사기관 자체 내의 감찰 등 여러 방법이 있으나 이는 위법수사에 대한 사후적 통제작용을 하는데 그 한계성이 있다. 따라서 위법한 방법으로 수집된 증거나 그 증거에서 다시 파생하여 얻은 모든 다른 증거를 법정에서 유죄의 증거로 인정하지 않는다면 수사기관은 수사초기부터 구태여 위법한 수사를 할 이유가 없는 것이다. 즉 위법수집증거배제법칙은 수사기관의 위법한 수사를 사전에 억지하여 피의자나 피고인의 인권옹호에도 기여하는 바가 크다. 물론 위법수집증거배제법칙이라 하여 사소한 절차의 위법이라도 있으면 무조건 증거능력이 배제된다고 볼 수는 없을 것이다. 예컨대 단순한 순시규정에 불과한 것에 위반한 정도의 위법수사는 허용될 수 있다고 본다. The Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Obtained Evidence, a principle of evidence law, denying the admissibility of evidence which is obtained by the illegal process. Therefore the evidence obtained by a illegal process-for example, the confession by a torture, the documents or articles obtained by that confession, the confiscated and searched articles without a warrant-has no admissibility of evidence. It has a important role in the light of the point that one can stop the illegal investigation. There are many ways in the criminal procedure law by which one can stop the illegal investigation; using the principle of warrant in the disposition by the investigation agence, the inspection inside the investigation agency itself, and so on. But these things have a limitness in the after controll on the illegal investigation. Therefore, if the court deny the admissibility of evidence which is obtained by the illegal process, the investigation agency will not investigate illegally. In other words, The Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Obtained Evidence is for the right of a defendant and suspect. Certainly, Deterrance of illegal investigation through the exclusionary rule is not always meant the exclusion of all illegally obtained evidence.

위법수집증거배제법칙 적용기준

김재중(Kim, Jae-Jung) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2010 法學硏究 Vol.21 No.1

The exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence is originated from the American judicial precedent law as core of lawful process is a possibility of doing from criminal action. Thus, Chapter Ⅰ,Ⅱ examined the meaning of the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence newly added to Article 308-2 of the Revised Criminal Procedure Code and discussed legal procedure as the theoretical ground for the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence, and the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence in major countries. Chapter Ⅲ discussed restrictions on the application of the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence. The problem of harmony doesn't solve the conflict between voluntary search and the idea of safeguarding human rights in criminal justice. This important problem is widely discussed. Fragmentary and superficial approachment is not problem solution of systematic, more synthesis and inclusive studies. As a result, It considered in the exclusionary rule of illegally collected Evidence in Criminal Procedure Code in Korea, especially in relation to revised Criminal Procedure Code §308-2. It approach how to develop the exclusionary rule of illegally collected evidence. In Criminal Procedure Code, about evidence ability or recognize of illegally collected evidence, ask of true discovery doctrine and from this point of safeguarding human rights, what point of harmony to constitutional ideas in asking the movements of the due process.

재량적 위법수집증거배제법칙과 증거수집의 주체

김종구(Kim, Jong-Goo) 한국형사법학회 2014 刑事法硏究 Vol.26 No.2

본 논문은 2013년의 대상판결과 관련하여 재량적 증거배제법칙의 판단기준과 증거수집의 주체의 문제를 비교법적 측면에서 고찰한 것이다. 먼저, 대상판결은 본 사건의 증거수집행위가 형사처벌되는 범죄행위에 해당할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 피고인 의 사생활의 비밀 내지 통신의 자유 등의 기본권을 침해하는 행위에 해당한다는 점은 인정하면서도 공익과 사익의 비교형량하에 증거능력을 인정하고 있다. 그러나 최근 미연방대법원은 재량적 증거배제법칙의 비교형량의 기준과 관련하여 수사기관이 의도적으로 (deliberately) , 미필적 고의로 (recklessly) 또는 중과실 (gross negligence) 로 위법증거를 수집한 경우는 증거사용을 배제한다. 이와 같은 미연방대법원 판례의 경향 은 우리 형사소송법상 위법수집증거배제법칙의 해석에 의미 있는 지침이 될 수 있다 고 판단된다. 대상판결에서도 증거수집이 범죄행위를 통해서 의도적으로 수집된 것 이므로 증거사용을 배제하는 것이 타당했다고 판단된다. 종래 우리 대법원은 증거수집의 주체가 ‘수사기관’이건 ‘사인’이건 관계없이 재량적 증거배제법칙을 적용하고 있었다. 그러나 증거수집의 주체가 수사기관이 아닌 ‘일반 공무원’인 경우에 관한 대법원 판례는 찾기 어려웠다. 미국의 경우, 종래 증거 배제법칙은 원칙적으로 수사기관이 증거수집의 주체인 경우에 적용되는 것으로 보았고, 사인이 수집한 위법증거에 대해서는 증거배제법칙이 적용되지 않는 것으로 보았다. 공립학교 교사와 같은 일반 공무원이 증거수집의 주체인 경우는 재량적 증거 배제법칙을 적용하였다. 본 대상판결의 증거수집 주체인 시청직원은 사인과 같은 위치에서 증거수집을 한 측면이 있지만, 공무원으로서의 지위를 갖는 자이므로, 본 대 상판결은 증거수집의 주체가 일반 공무원인 경우에도 재량적 증거배제법칙을 적용 한 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 따라서 우리 대법원은 이제 증거수집의 주체가 ‘수사기 관’이건, ‘일반 공무원’이건, ‘사인’이건 모두 재량적 증거배제법칙을 취하고 있다는 것이 본 대상판결을 계기로 더욱 명확해 진 것으로 판단된다. The Korean Code of Criminal Procedure adopted an exclusionary rule in article 308-2. The exclusionary rule was originally created by the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court declared that evidence seized by unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the defendant in a criminal case. The exclusionary rule in Korean Code of Criminal Procedure originated from this doctrine which was established by the US Supreme Court. However, the meaning of the rule is different in each country. For example, the rule is not applicable where evidence is illegally seized by a private party in the US because the rule is basically applicable only when evidence is seized by a law enforcement officer such as a policeman. The rule is also interpreted as a rule which automatically excludes illegally seized evidence. The rule is applicable whether the public official is law enforcement official or not. However, if the public officer who illegally seized evidence is not a law enforcement official, the rule is applicable only where its deterrence benefits outweighs its social costs. In recent cases the US Supreme Court has acted to severly restrict the exclusionary rule. A line of cases in the US established a discretionary exclusionary rule which requires balancing the efficacy of deterrence of future government misbehavior against the costs of exclusion in determining whether to exclude illegally seized evidence. More specifically, in recent cases the Court has limited its application to cases where the police have violated the Fourth Amendment purposely, knowingly, or recklessly. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that the rule is applicable whether a searcher and seizer is a law enforcement official or a private party. The Supreme Court of Korea has interpreted the rule as a discretionary rule which needs balancing of private interests against public interests. In a recent case where a searcher was a municipal official and not a law enforcement official, the Supreme Court of Korea held that the evidence which is found by an illegal search which constitutes a crime was admissible because public interests outweighs private interests. The author of this article analyzed a recent case of the Supreme Court of Korea. In the recent case, the Korean Supreme Court of Korea has indicated that the exclusionary rule is applicable where a searcher is a police officer or a municipal officer or a private party, and exclusion of evidence should be determined by balancing public interests against private interests. The author of this article argues that the discretionary rule which is adopted by the Supreme Court of Korea is appropriate. However, the author is against the tests which are adopted by the Court. The author argues that illegally seized evidence should be excluded when a searcher and seizer's conduct is deliberate, reckless and grossly negligent. The author argues that seized evidence by misbehavior which constitutes a crime should be excluded. Thus, the Supreme Court of Korea has to change its standpoint when it determines exclusion of illegally seized evidence by balancing relevant interests.

위법수집증거배제법칙의 적용기준에 대한 비교법적 연구

이윤제 한국형사판례연구회 2010 刑事判例硏究 Vol.18 No.-

The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The exclusionary rule enforces this constitutional provision by excluding from the trial of a case any evidence that has been obtained by the government through means which violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule operates as a bar to the use of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. The US courts have been reluctant to impose exclusion as a judicial remedy for a violation of a federal statute or regulation, or a Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The other major civilized country, such as UK, Canada, Japan, France, Italy, and Germany, also have their own exclusionary rule related with the improperly, illegally or unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The revised Code of Korean Criminal Procedure introduced the exclusionary rule of the US to the criminal justice system where Korean Supreme Court has been refusing to apply the rule to the material evidence which is obtained by the illegal search or seizure of the government. It provides that the evidence which is obtained by violating due process of law shall not be admitted. The admission of the evidence, in Korea, depends on whether the government followed the due process of law while the evidence that has been secured by violation of the constitutional right shall be excluded in US. In addition, the major opinion of Korean Supreme Court recently held that, in principle, the exclusionary rule should be applied to the material evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure process which did not follow the Korean Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law. According to this ruling, there is a chance that the slight violation of the Criminal Procedure Code by investigative agents would result in exclusion. I disagree with this opinion of Korean Supreme Court because this opinion did not deeply considered the one of the goals in criminal procedure - the discovery of the truth. The standard of the exclusionary rule must be whether the illegality of government's violation is substantial or serious considering the spirit of due process of law. It was the minor opinion of that Supreme Court's ruling.

사인이 위법하게 수집한 증거의 증거능력

최영승,정영일 경희대학교 법학연구소 2013 경희법학 Vol.48 No.4

The admissibility of illegally obtained evidence by private person is a matter of Criminal Procedure 2 of Article 308. That is related range of application exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence. To prevent illegal investigation is the primary objective of exclusionary rule and Revised Code of Criminal Procedure 2007. But fundamental right has an effect with respect to the individuals according to the effects on the private people and obligations to guarantee of fundamental right by nation. This means that the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence may affects the private people. This is why I describe this rule in terms of this. The term illegally obtained evidence by private person is obtained by crime(burglary etc.) or secretly collecting by private. Recently, Infringement of fundamental rights works irrationally by recording and image photographing in individuals. Country was no longer able to ignore this. This is because the state has a obligation to protect human dignity. This situation tells us that exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence applied to individuals. Nevertheless, the case kept a negative attitude in this rule effects on the private people. In this paper, I am examining first theoretical basis of the effects on the private people of this rule and then specific patterns focusing on the main types. The constitutional basis and specific types are the core of this paper. Which include evidence obtained crime, secretly recorded conversations between the parties, Secretly filmed film producer etc. In summary, Let us include Legal relationship between private person in applications scope of exclusionary rule. In other words, illegally obtained evidence by private person exclude from world of evidence law because of an essential infringement of fundamental rights. This is to ensure due process and fundamental rights are thoroughly. Then, let’s solve by the profit comparison. Eventually the focus of this article is to ensure fundamental rights thoroughly through application of exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence between private person. 사인이 위법하게 수집한 증거의 증거능력은 형사소송법 제308조의2의 문제이다. 이는 위법수집증거배제법칙의 적용범위와 관련이 있다. 위법수집증거 배제법칙은 2007년 개정 형사소송법에서 도입된 것으로 수사기관의 위법한 행위를 방지하고자 하는 데 그 일차적 목적이 있다. 그러나 기본권은 대사인적 효력에 의하여 그리고 국가의 기본권 보장의무에 의하여 사인에게도 그 효력을 미친다. 이는 헌법상의 적법절차원리를 내용으로 하는 위법수집증거배제법칙이 사인에게도 효력이 미칠 수 있음을 의미한다. 이러한 관점에서 이 법칙을 서술하는 이유가 여기에 있다. 여기서 사인이 위법하게 수집한 증거란 사인이 범죄행위(주거침입 등) 등을 통하여 불법적으로 수집하거나 혹은 당사자 몰래 수집한 증거를 포함하는 개념이다. 최근 정보통신기술의 발전과 함께 사인간의 통화녹취나 영상촬영에 의한 기본권침해가 무분별하게 이루어지고 있다. 이에 국가도 더 이상 이를 무시할 수 없는 지경에 이르렀다. 국가는 궁극적으로 인간의 존엄을 보호해야 할 헌법적 의무를 지고 있기 때문이다. 이러한 상황은 위법수집증거 배제법칙이 사인간에도 적용되어야 함을 말해준다. 그럼에도 불구하고 판례는 지금까지 이를 사인에 대하여 인정함에 있어서 소극적인 태도로 일관하여 왔다. 이에 이 글은 먼저 이 법칙의 대사인적 효력의 이론적 근거를 살펴본다. 그런 연후에 현실적인 주요 유형을 중심으로 구체적인 논의를 진행하기로 한다. 이러한 헌법적 근거 및 구체적 유형이야말로 이 글의 핵심이다. 구체적 유형으로 범죄행위로 인하여 얻은 증거, 대화당사자간에 비밀리에 녹음한 녹음테이프, 비밀리에 촬영한 영상물 등을 들 수 있다. 요컨대 사인간의 법률관계도 기본권의 효력을 당연히 인정하여 위법수집증거 배제법칙의 적용범위 속으로 끌어들이는 것이다. 즉 사인이 수집한 증거도 범죄행위 등과 같은 불법한 방법에 의하거나 혹은 상대방 몰래 비밀리에 수집함으로써 기본권의 본질적 침해를 수반하는 것은 기본권의 대사인적 효력에 의하여 증거에서 배제하자는 입장이다. 이렇게 하는 것이 적법절차 이념과 헌법상의 기본권보장에 철저한 것이 된다. 결국 이 글의 초점은 사인간의 법률관계에도 위법수집증거배제법칙을 적용하여 기본권보장에 철저를 기하자는 것이다.

위법한 압수수색에 의하여 수집된 증거의 배제에 관한 비교법적 고찰

변필건(Pil-gun, Byun) 대검찰청 2011 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.31

우리나라에는 그동안 위법하게 수집한 물적 증거의 증거능력을 부정하는 규정이 없었으며 대법원도 그동안 진술증거에 대하여는 위법수집증거배제법칙을 인정하여 왔음에 반하여 물적 증거에 관하여는 압수절차가 위법이라 하더라도 물건 자체의 성질형상에 변경을 가져오는 것은 아니므로 증거가치에는 변함이 없다는 이유로 위법수집증거배제법칙을 부정하여 왔다. 그러나 2007년도 형사소송법의 개정을 통해 제308조의2에서는 ‘위법수집증거의 배제’라는 제목 아래 적법한 절차에 따르지 아니하고 수집한 증거는 증거로 할 수 없다는 규정을 명문으로 두게 되었지만 그 기준으로 ‘적법한 절차에 따르지 아니하고 수집한 증거’라는 추상적인 규정을 두고 있어 그 해석에 대하여 논란이 예상되는 실정이다. 이와 관련하여 대법원은 2007. 11. 15. 비진술증거에 대하여도 위법수집증거배제 법칙을 인정하는 전원합의체 판결을 내면서 증거배제기준을 구체적으로 제시하여 향후 해석론에 기틀을 닦은 것으로 평가받고 있다. 그러므로 이러한 증거능력 배제기준에 대한 해석을 위하여 미국, 영국, 독일, 일본 등 외국의 입법례 및 판례를 살펴보고 이와 관련된 압수수색 절차 위반사안이나 포괄영장, 별건영장, 예견영장 등에 대한 외국의 논의를 검토하여 우리나라의 개정법 해석에 참고하는 것은 의미 있는 작업으로 보인다. 그러나 절차위반으로 인하여 수집한 압수물의 증거능력 유무를 판단함에 있어서는 적법절차의 이념과 실체적 진실규명의 이념을 조화시키는 노력이 요구되므로 양자의 이익을 비교형량함으로써 법규정의 보호목적, 위법의 중대성, 수사기관의 고의성, 침해법익의 정도, 범죄의 중대성 등을 종합적으로 고려한 결과 그 위법이 중대하고 사건의 내용과 비교하여 이를 증거로 함이 사법정의에 반하거나 헌법의 영장주의를 몰각할 정도로 심각하여 배제함이 상당한 경우에만 예외적으로 배제되어야 한다는 견해를 피력해본다. In Korea, there was no exclusionary rule regarding illegally obtained physical evidence. Without the exclusionary rule until recently, we could not prevent a police officer from conducting an unreasonable search and seizure. The exclusionary rule is the primary means of deterring these violations and the judicially invented means for the judicial integrity because there is no other real remedy and a disciplinary action is not really effective than expected and The Korean Supreme Court has not excluded physical evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures while suppressing evidence obtained by illegal arrest, detention and police interrogation. But there is no distinct difference between the physical evidence obtained by illegal search and statement obtained by illegal investigation. Fortunately, as a result of the reform of the Korean Criminal Procedure Code(therefore “KCPC”) in 2007, Korea now has a statute about the exclusionary rule that includes both illegally obtained confessions and physical evidence. With this new exclusionary rule, we will now have to consider the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,” and “Exception Theories,” but there was no guidance as to which factors should be considered in assessing whether the initial poison should taint the secondary evidence in Korea. In this paper, I touch on the exclusionary rule in the U.S. in comparison to that of Korea. I also briefly review that of other countries and then review Korea’s Supreme Court decision to understand the prospective and trends for Korean criminal procedure reform. In conclusion, after comparing several countries' systems, We need make a balance test between truth finding function and privacy protection regarding the admissibility of illegally obtained physical evidence through a search and seizure.

민사소송에서의 위법수집증거에 관한 연구

최춘식 대한변호사협회 2015 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.450

Because the Civil Procedure Code makes it a rule to pleadings principle, victory or defeat of lawsuit depend on persuasion of parties litigant and whether proof or not. However, because the Civil Procedure Code has not concrete limitation rule for the admissibility of evidence in contrast with the Criminal Procedure Code, hearsay evidence has the admissibility of evidence and document which is written after filing a lawsuit not limit on the admissibility of evidence. So, naturally, the Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Obtained Evidence under 2 of Article 308 in the Criminal Procedure Code isn’t existed. In other countries, there are some cases for a long time which had disapproved the admissibility of evidence, applying the Exclusionary Rule, while no precedent had disapproved until now in Korea. There is a only one precedent which had disapproved the admissibility of evidence due to the illegality of evidence investigation process. However, the issue of the admissibility of evidence for illegal gathered evidence in this precedent treats the admissibility of evidence which was gathered by invasion for others’ benefit and protection of the law before filing a lawsuit or during legal proceedings. Although the Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Obtained Evidence origins the procedure of criminal cases, it needs to active effort to accept this one. It musts not that lawsuit condition to one’s advantage is built by infringement for others’ benefit and protection of the law. By the acceptance of this legal principle, there is practical reason to prevent to infringing the rights. I argue that this legal principle have to be discussed aggressively because it is a common view and perspective of precedent that due process principle in Constitution is leading principle which governs not also to procedure of criminal cases, but also to all fields which governmental authority is exerted. Also, it needs in conditions which it is increasing to necessity of protection for one’s private life by development of advanced technology. 민사소송법은 변론주의를 원칙으로 하고 있으므로 당사자의 주장과 입증 여부에 따라 소송의승패가 좌우된다. 그런데 민사소송법은 형사소송법과 달리 증거능력에 대한 구체적 제한 규정을 두고있지 않으므로 전문증거도 증거능력이 있고, 소 제기 후에 작성된 문서라고 하여도 증거능력에 제한이없다. 그러므로 당연히 형사소송법 제308조의2에서 규정하고 있는 위법수집증거배제법칙과 같은 규정도 존재하지 않는다. 그러나 외국의 경우 이미 오래 전부터 민사소송에서도 위 배제법칙을 적용하여증거능력을 부인한 사례가 있는데, 현재까지 우리 판례는 이를 적용하여 증거능력을 부정하고 있는 경우는 찾아 볼 수 없다. 다만 증거조사절차에서의 위법을 이유로 증거능력을 부정하고 있는 판례가 유일하다. 그러나 여기에서 논의하는 위법수집증거의 증거능력 문제는 소 제기 이전 또는 소송계속 중소송법상의 절차에 의하지 않고 당사자의 일방이 타인의 법익을 침해하여 수집한 증거능력의 문제를다룬다. 위법수집증거배제법칙이 형사절차에서 유래한 것은 사실이지만 민사소송에서도 이를 수용하는적극적인 노력이 필요하다고 본다. 타인의 법익을 침해하면서까지 자신에게 유리한 소송상태를 형성해서는 안 되며, 이러한 법리의 수용으로 인해 법익침해를 방지할 수 있다는 현실적 이유도 있기 때문이다. 나아가 헌법상 적법절차의 원리는 비단 형사절차에 국한되지 않으며 국가공권력이 행사되는 모든영역을 지배하는 지도원리라는 것이 통설 및 판례의 입장이고, 또한 첨단기술의 발달에 따라 개인의사생활에 대한 보호의 필요성이 날로 더하여지는 현실에 비추어 보아도 위 법리의 적극적 논의가 필요하다고 생각된다.