형사증거법상 DNA증거의 해석 및 적용범위

최대호 중앙법학회 2013 中央法學 Vol.15 No.3

With the development of DNA analysis techniques, DNA profiling has become regarded as the most reliable method of personal identification. As a result, in the criminal procedure, there are increasing numbers of cases of finding suspects on the basis of DNA evidence and declaring them guilty. Therefore DNA profiling and DNA evidence are extremely important in the criminal procedure. Through the discussion on the personal identification of DNA profiling and the failure possibility of DNA discriminating judgment result, this paper has looked at the normative standards for determining accuracy of DNA evidence, which are the necessity, the contents and the evidence law' status of the reliability criteria. In addition, it has examined the extent to which courts must apply the DNA evidence when they admit the defendant's guilty. As a result of that, when declaring defendants guilty on DNA evidence, a more cautious approach is required in applying DNA evidence with the following considerations. First, to improve the accuracy of DNA evidence, concrete and systematic standards for judgment on reliability are needed both legally and institutionally. Second, the admissibility of DNA evidence is determined by the authenticity of the appraiser’s appraisal. Therefore, the standards for judgment on reliability should be regarded as an area of probative force. Third, even if the DNA evidence meets the requirement for reliability, the court needs to avoid finding the defendant guilty solely on the DNA evidence. When the need for declaring the defendant guilty solely on the DNA evidence is great, it should only be allowed when the reappraisal on the current appraisal is guaranteed. With the development of DNA analysis techniques, DNA profiling has become regarded as the most reliable method of personal identification. As a result, in the criminal procedure, there are increasing numbers of cases of finding suspects on the basis of DNA evidence and declaring them guilty. Therefore DNA profiling and DNA evidence are extremely important in the criminal procedure. Through the discussion on the personal identification of DNA profiling and the failure possibility of DNA discriminating judgment result, this paper has looked at the normative standards for determining accuracy of DNA evidence, which are the necessity, the contents and the evidence law' status of the reliability criteria. In addition, it has examined the extent to which courts must apply the DNA evidence when they admit the defendant's guilty. As a result of that, when declaring defendants guilty on DNA evidence, a more cautious approach is required in applying DNA evidence with the following considerations. First, to improve the accuracy of DNA evidence, concrete and systematic standards for judgment on reliability are needed both legally and institutionally. Second, the admissibility of DNA evidence is determined by the authenticity of the appraiser’s appraisal. Therefore, the standards for judgment on reliability should be regarded as an area of probative force. Third, even if the DNA evidence meets the requirement for reliability, the court needs to avoid finding the defendant guilty solely on the DNA evidence. When the need for declaring the defendant guilty solely on the DNA evidence is great, it should only be allowed when the reappraisal on the current appraisal is guaranteed.

영장 집행 전, 중, 후 디지털 증거의 신뢰성에 관한 분석적 고찰

박상준(Sangjoon Park) 한국디지털포렌식학회 2021 디지털 포렌식 연구 Vol.15 No.4

2007년 대법원 판결을 통해 디지털 증거의 진정성 요건으로 증거의 동일성과 컴퓨터 시스템의 신뢰성이 제시되었다. 그러나 그동안 증거의 동일성에 관한 연구는 많이 있었으나 신뢰성에 관한 연구는 전무한 편이다. 본 논문에서는 컴퓨터 시스템의 신뢰성을 확장시킨 디지털 증거의 신뢰성을 소개하고, 디지털 증거를 보유하거나 처리하는 3종류의 시스템(수색대상시스템, 영장 집행 과정에서 사용되는 증거수집시스템, 영장 집행 이후 획득한 디지털 증거를 분석하는 증거분석시스템)에 대하여 기술하고, 각각의 시스템이 다루는 디지털 증거의 신뢰성에 대하여 분석하고자 한다. 또한 디지털 파일의 형식적 진정성 증명과 증거수집시스템에서 수집하는 디지털 증거의 신뢰성 증명에서 컴퓨터 생성 증거의 중요성을 제기하고자 한다. In 2007, The Supreme Court suggested the original equality of digital evidence and the reliability of a computer system as requirements for authenticity of digital evidence. Since then, there have been many studies on the original equality of digital evidence, but no studies on reliability. In this paper, we will describe the reliability of digital evidence that the reliability of a computer system is extended to and 3 different types of computer systems that hold and process digital evidence.; the search target system before executing the search warrant; the evidence collection system acquiring digital evidence during executing the search warrant; the evidence analysis system analyzing the acquired digital evidence. Then we will analyze the reliability of digital evidence in the search target system, the evidence collection system and the evidence analysis system, respectively. In addition, the importance of computer-generated evidence will be raised in proving the formal authenticity of digital files and proving the reliability of digital evidence collected by the evidence collection system.

형사소송 절차에서의 탄핵 대상에 대한 소고 - 탄핵증거의 정의를 바탕으로 -

손정아 대검찰청 2019 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.64

The Criminal Procedure Act and the rules did not directly use the terms “Impeachment” or “Impeachment evidence” nor did they define them. The Supreme Court defines “impeachment evidence as acceptable to attack the reliability of a statement evidence.” At the same time, the Supreme Court uses the term “impeach” on non-statement evidence, raising questions about what the exact definition of impeachment is and whether non-statement evidence is subject to impeachment. The academic orthodoxy defines the impeachment evidence as “evidence to contend with reliability of a statement evidence”, but this does not conform to the interpretation of Article 318.2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which also goes against the content of Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Rule. Clause 2 of Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Rule stipulates that ‘interrogation shall be concerned with matters concerning the reliability of testimony and the credibility of witnesses’, so the subject of impeachment is not only the reliability of statement but also the credibility of witnesses. Furthermore, considering that the U.S. federal evidence rules, which are the origin of our impeachment evidence clause, set impeachment as an “attack on the credibility of witnesses,” the subject of impeachment should be limited to “the reliability of testimony” and “the credibility of witnesses.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s use of the expression “impeachment” on non-statement evidence stems from the lack of a definition of impeachment evidence and an understanding of the subject of impeachment, which should be used from now on. 형사소송법 및 규칙에서는 ‘탄핵증거’나 ‘탄핵’이라는 용어를 직접 사용하지 않고 그에 대한 정의도 하지 않았다. 대법원은 “탄핵증거는 진술의 증명력을 감쇄하기 위하여 인정되는 것”으로 정의하면서도, 일부 판결에서는 비진술 증거에 대하여도 ‘탄핵한다’는 표현을 사용하는 등 개념 사용에 혼란을 겪고 있다. 한편 학계 통설은 형사소송법 제318조의2를 근거로 탄핵증거를 ‘진술의 증명력을 다투기 위한 증거’로 정의한다. 그러나 이는 형사소송법 제318조의2에 대한 잘못된 해석에 기반한 것으로서 형사소송규칙 제77조의 내용과도 전면으로 반하므로 재고되어야 한다. 형사소송규칙 제77조 제2항이 탄핵의 대상으로 ‘진술의 신빙성’ 외에도 ‘증인의 신용성’까지 명시적으로 포함하기 때문이다. 나아가, 우리 탄핵증거 조항의 유래인 미국 연방 증거규칙에서도 탄핵을 ‘증인의 신용성에 대한 공격’으로 정하고 있는 점, “탄핵”의 어원이 “발에 족쇄를 채우다”는 뜻인 점 등을 종합적으로 고려할 때, 탄핵의 대상은 ‘진술의 신빙성’ 및 ‘증인의 신용성’으로 한정되어야 한다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 대법원이 비진술 증거에 대해서도 탄핵한다는 표현을 무분별하게 사용하는 것은 탄핵증거의 정의와 탄핵의 대상에 대한 이해가 부족한 데서 비롯된 현상이므로, 지금부터라도 정확한 용어를 사용하여야 할 것이다.

A novel evidence theory model and combination rule for reliability estimation of structures

Y.R. Tao,Q. Wang,L. Cao,S.Y. Duan,Z.H.H. Huang,G.Q. Cheng 국제구조공학회 2017 Structural Engineering and Mechanics, An Int'l Jou Vol.62 No.4

Due to the discontinuous nature of uncertainty quantification in conventional evidence theory(ET), the computational cost of reliability analysis based on ET model is very high. A novel ET model based on fuzzy distribution and the corresponding combination rule to synthesize the judgments of experts are put forward in this paper. The intersection and union of membership functions are defined as belief and plausible membership function respectively, and the Murfhy’s average combination rule is adopted to combine the basic probability assignment for focal elements. Then the combined membership functions are transformed to the equivalent probability density function by a normalizing factor. Finally, a reliability analysis procedure for structures with the mixture of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties is presented, in which the equivalent normalization method is adopted to solve the upper and lower bound of reliability. The effectiveness of the procedure is demonstrated by a numerical example and an engineering example. The results also show that the reliability interval calculated by the suggested method is almost identical to that solved by conventional method. Moreover, the results indicate that the computational cost of the suggested procedure is much less than that of conventional method. The suggested ET model provides a new way to flexibly represent epistemic uncertainty, and provides an efficiency method to estimate the reliability of structures with the mixture of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties.

진술증거의 신빙성과 SCAN기법

권오걸 경북대학교 법학연구원 2012 법학논고 Vol.0 No.40

Most of Judge or Jury finds the facts in legal Reasoning through the statement evidence. At this time accuracy of the inference through the statement depend on the Reliability of the Statement. the Reliability of the Statement means the probative force of evidence, in court to decide the probative force of evidence impeachment method was used. Generally the Reliability of the Statement consist of the three factors, that is Veracity, Objectivity, Observational sensitivity. The SCAN(Scientific Content Analysis) technique is developed by Sapir, and it is based upon his studies of linguistic behaviour used by individuals within deceptive forms of communication. The SCAN technique appears to draw upon the Undeutsch hypothesis : that statements based upon observations of actual, self-experienced events will be different from statements that are the products of fantasy and invention. The SCAN does not examine the level of language, which could be affected by factors such as IQ and linguistic skills, but looks instead into the structure and changes in the language behaviour of the same person. But we can not help agreeing that The SCAN has so many limits and problem according to the language itself's limits such as ambiguity, polysemy, abstractness. And linguistic habits can be the limits to the SCAN. Nevertheless the importance of the fact-finding in criminal procedure must be emphasized. Because Criminal trial based on the verbal trial and Unmittelbarkeit is more faithful than written trial. And the limit which statement evidence has to be overcomed through the analysis to the scientific evidence. 사실인정을 위한 추론에서 상당한 부분을 차지하는 것이 진술이며, 진술을 통한 추론은 결국은 진술의 신빙성에 달려있다고 해도 과언이 아니다. 이러한 언어적 증거를 통한 상호이해는 말을 하는 자와 듣는 자 사이의 언어관용에 따라서 그에 수반된 감정에 따라서 이해의 범위와 정도가 달라진다. 따라서 이러한 과정에서 무엇보다도 중요한 것은 진술증거(말증거)의 신빙성이라고 할 수 있다. 진술증거의 신빙성은 결국 진술증거의 증명력이라고 할 수 있는데, 기존에 법정에서는 진술증거의 신빙성을 판단하는 방법으로 주로 진술자를 상대로 진술증거를 탄핵하는 방법이 사용되어 왔다. 즉 증인의 진실성(veracity), 객관성(objectivity), 관찰감수성(observational sensitivity)의 세 가지 요소가 고려되었다. 진술증거를 통한 합리적 사실인정을 위하여 최근 진술분석의 기법이 활용되고 있다. 진술기법 중 SCAN(Scientific Content Analysis)은 인간의 실제의 경험의 기억에서 유래된 진술은 상상에 의해서 만들어진 진술과는 그 내용과 질적 요소에 있어서 다르다는 Undeutsch Hypothesis를 기초로 한다. 그러나 진술증거를 통한 사실인정은 다음과 같은 한계를 가지고 있다. 우선 형사절차에서 피고인의 유죄형성을 위한 사실들은 합리적 의심을 넘어서서 형성될 것이 요구된다. 또한 진술증거의 기초인 인간 언어자체 그리고 언어 사용방법의 복잡성과 애매성 그리고 주관성에 의해서 사실인정은 많은 한계를 가질 수밖에 없으며, 개인이 경험한 사실의 다양성이 언어의 획일성에 의해서 무시될 수도 있다. 그러나 진술분석을 통한 사실인정은 이러한 한계를 지니고 있음에도 불구하고 형사재판에서 진술증거를 통한 사실인정의 중요성이 강조될 수밖에 없다. 구두주의와 직접심리주의에 기초한 형사재판이 서면을 통한 재판에 비해서 형사사건의 진실에 더 접근 할 수 있고 피고인 보호에 더 충실하기 때문이다. 그리고 진술증거가 가지고 있는 한계는 과학적인 정황증거 등에 대한 정확한 분석을 통해서 극복하여야 할 것이다.

디지털 증거의 증거능력

강미영 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2019 외법논집 Vol.43 No.3

Due to the development of science and technology, the use of digital devices has become commonplace. So, the collection and use of digital evidence is important not only for cyber crime but also for crimes in daily life. People leave their traces on electronic devices without knowing themselves. As a result, important electronic evidence of crime is often stored in personal electronic devices. It means that the importance of collecting and analyzing the digital evidence has increased. Digital evidence differs from common evidence. Thus, the digital evidence must satisfy the originality, integrity, and reliability of the digital evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility to be recognized. And in hearsay evidence case, if the authenticity of the establishment is recognized according to hearsay rule, the admissibility of evidence can be recognized. Most of all, in order for digital information to be evidence, digital evidence must be collected without altering or compromising the original, and when recovering digital evidence, it must be possible to prove that the recovered evidence is the same as the originally seized evidence. Digital forensics can be used to ensure this process. As the life becomes digitized, digital forensic technology is increasingly required. Expertise is required for the smooth collection and analysis of digital evidence, and reliability must be ensured in order for the seized digital evidence to be recognized as legal evidence. Ultimately, in order to obtain the authenticity and credibility of the evidence, a systematic digital forensic investigation procedure should be established. As the importance of digital evidence grows, the requirements and legislation related to digital evidence capabilities need to be systematically restructured in the area of criminal procedure law. 과학 기술의 발달로 스마트폰을 비롯한 여러 가지 전자기기의 사용이 일상화됨에 따라, 디지털 증거의 수집과 활용은 컴퓨터와 네트워크를 이용하여 행하여지는 사이버범죄뿐만이 아니라 일상생활에서 발생하는 범죄에서도 중요하게 작용되고 있다. 사람들은 자기도 모르는 사이에 전자기기에 자신의흔적을 남김으로써, 개인 전자기기 속에 범죄 여부를 밝힐 수 있는 중요 증거들이 보관되는 경우가 많아 해당 증거들의 수집과 분석의 중요성이 높아진 것이다. 범죄와 관련하여 디지털 형태로 저장되거나 전송되는 증거로서의 가치가 있는 디지털 증거는 일반증거의 한 형태이지만, 형체가 없으므로 일반 증거들과는 다른 특징을 가진다. 그리하여 그 증거능력이 인정되기 위해서는 선결요건으로 디지털 증거의 원본성, 무결성, 신뢰성이 충족되어야 하고, 만약전문증거라면 전문법칙에 따라 성립의 진정성이 인정되어야 증거능력을 인정받을 수 있다. 무엇보다 디지털 정보가 증거로 인정받기 위해서는 기본적으로 원본의 변경이나 손상 없이 디지털 증거를 수집하고, 삭제한 디지털 증거를 복구한 경우 복구한 증거가 원래 압수된 증거와 같은 것임을 증명할수 있어야 하는데, 이러한 일련의 과정을 보장하기 위해 이용할 수 있는 것이 디지털 포렌식이다. 기술의발전으로 대부분의 삶이 디지털화가 됨에 따라 사이버범죄뿐만 아니라 일반 범죄에 대한 단서도 생활 전자기기들을 통해 찾아낼 수 있는 경우가 많아지면서 디지털 포렌식 기술이 요구되는 일이 늘어나고 있다. 디지털 증거의 원활한 수집이나 분석을 위해서는 전문성이 필요하고 압수된 디지털 증거가 법적 증거로 인정되기 위해서는 신뢰성이 확보되어야 한다. 결국 증거의 진정성이나 신뢰성을 얻기 위해서는체계적으로 디지털 포렌식 수사절차가 확립되어야 할 것이고 해당 기술의 교육을 통하여 지속적인 발전이 필요할 것이다. 또한 디지털 증거에 대한 압수⋅수색은 국가디지털포렌식센터에서 동일하게 이루어진다고 하더라도 검증은 그것만을 전문으로 해줄 중립적인 검증 전문기관이 검증하는 것이 더 타당하다고 여겨진다. 무엇보다 디지털 증거의 중요성이 커져가는만큼 형사소송법 영역에서 디지털 증거능력에 관한 요건과 입법이 독립하여 체계적으로 정비될 필요가 있다.

Multiobjective reliability-based design optimization approach using the gray system and evidence theory

Jiwei Qiu,Haisheng Luo 대한기계학회 2022 JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Vol.36 No.4

Aimed at the subjectivity of selecting the weight of each objective function in the process of multiobjective reliability-based design optimization (MRBDO), this study proposed a multiobjective weight quantitative analysis method by combining the gray incidence analysis method and evidence theory. This method derived the weight of each objective function from the uncertainty information of design variables, and effectively avoided the subjectivity of weight selection. First, the ideal attribute interval number and the interval number matrix of uncertain design variables were defined based on the gray system theory. On the basis of the definition of the information structure sequence, the gray incidence coefficient (GIC) matrix of measures with ideal attribute deviations was derived. Second, the basic probability assignment of each objective function and model under uncertainty variables was derived based on the DempsterShafer evidence theory. The Dempster-Shafer evidence synthesis rule was used to fuse the multisource evidence information to obtain the weight of each objective function. Then, an MRBDO problem was converted into a single-objective reliability-based design optimization (SRBDO) problem, which is relatively easier to address. Third, the performance measurement analysis (PMA) method was used to transform the reliability constraint into an optimized iterative process, and the MRBDO solution was obtained based on the MATLAB Optimization Toolbox and Symbol Toolbox. Finally, the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed method were verified through a numerical example and a small aeroengine gear reduction system.

‘과학적 증거’의 증거법적 평가

이정봉 한국형사판례연구회 2013 刑事判例硏究 Vol.21 No.-

The scientific evidence has become more important in judicial conflict. Aside from its authenticity, scientific evidence combining with tendency in perception of people affect establishment of the fact greatly when it is adopted as evidence. Therefore, which channel is used to have the court recognize science evidence has emerged as an important issue, especially in the U.S. where jury trials have taken place in stead of judge trials. The U.S. Supreme Court has provided a variety of legal grounds on this issue and is developing the grounds. In this commentary, the progress of discussion in the U.S. regarding adoption of scientific evidence is reviewed in detail.Korea is about to introduce full-fledged criminal trial by jury, so how to adopt expert testimony including scientific evidence to confirm the fact of judicial conflicts will have more grave importance. In this regard, discussion over the role of a justice as a gate keeper, suggested in the Supreme Court’s decision on Daubert case, will take shape.The court has tried to evaluate scientific evidence through precedents on individual evidence including a polygraph. The subject decision is very significant because it went further to suggest common standard for validity of scientific evidence by referring to the reliability standard suggested in the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings. However, suggesting the generality without legal basis like the U.S. Federal rules on evidence has a room for criticism such as ‘creating the law’ by court’s decisions. To resolve such concerns, admissibility of evidence and reliability should be divided and standards appropriate for Korea’s criminal procedure system where strict evidence reliability is needed. Then, based on those efforts, interpretation on court rulings should be developed. The discussion between the academia and the field is urgently necessary. Also, judgement on scientific evidence requires collaboration between the science and the judicial society. Therefore, various efforts for communication and institutional improvements shown in the commentary must be developed and there should be improvements regarding the system of seeking an expert opinion.

한국어판 간호대학생의 근거기반실무 측정도구(S-EBPQ)의 타당도 및 신뢰도 검증

김선경 대한산업경영학회 2020 산업융합연구 Vol.18 No.1

본 연구는 Upton, Scurlock-Evans 와 Upton 이 개발한 간호대학생의 근거기반실무 측정도구(S-EBPQ)를 한국어로 번안하고 신뢰도와 타당도를 검증하기 위해 수행되었다. 근거기반실무에 대한 학습 경험과 임상실습 경험이 있는 간호대학생 209명의 자료를 데이터 분석에 활용하였다. 구성타당도를 위한 탐색적 요인분석결과 기존의 도구와 동일한 4 요인, 21 문항이 확인되었다. 도구의 설명력은 67% 였고 도구 전체의 신뢰도는 .927 이였다. 한국어판 S-EBPQ는 우리나라 간호대학생의 근거기반실무 역량을 평가하는데 활용될 수 있을것이다. 또한 도구를 활용하여 우리나라 간호대학의 근거기반실무 교육 프로그램이 효과를 평가하는데 활용 될 수 있을것이며 이는 간호교육의 질 향상에 기여할 것으로 기대된다. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Korean version of Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (S-EBPQ) which developed by Upton, Scurlock-Evans, and Upton. Data were collected from 209 nursing students with previous experience of education in evidence-based practice and clinical placement. Using SPSS 25.0, construct validity, concurrent validity and reliability were evaluated. The Korean version of S-EBPQ consisted of 21 items in four domains. The measurement explained 67.0% and the reliability using Cronbach's alpha was .927. The Korean version of S-EBPQ can be used to evaluate the ability of evidence-based practice among nursing students. The tool could be also used to examine the effectiveness of educational programs for evidence-based practice which would contribute to improving the quality of nursing education in Korea.

형사증거법상 DNA증거의 해석 및 적용범위

Dae Ho Choi 중앙법학회 2013 中央法學 Vol.15 No.3

With the development of DNA analysis techniques, DNA profiling has become regarded as the most reliable method of personal identification. As a result, in the criminal procedure, there are increasing numbers of cases of finding suspects on the basis of DNA evidence and declaring them guilty. Therefore DNA profiling and DNA evidence are extremely important in the criminal procedure. Through the discussion on the personal identification of DNA profiling and the failure possibility of DNA discriminating judgment result, this paper has looked at the normative standards for determining accuracy of DNA evidence, which are the necessity, the contents and the evidence law` status of the reliability criteria. In addition, it has examined the extent to which courts must apply the DNA evidence when they admit the defendant`s guilty. As a result of that, when declaring defendants guilty on DNA evidence, a more cautious approach is required in applying DNA evidence with the following considerations. First, to improve the accuracy of DNA evidence, concrete and systematic standards for judgment on reliability are needed both legally and institutionally. Second, the admissibility of DNA evidence is determined by the authenticity of the appraiser`s appraisal. Therefore, the standards for judgment on reliability should be regarded as an area of probative force. Third, even if the DNA evidence meets the requirement for reliability, the court needs to avoid finding the defendant guilty solely on the DNA evidence. When the need for declaring the defendant guilty solely on the DNA evidence is great, it should only be allowed when the reappraisal on the current appraisal is guaranteed.