한국과 중국 법원의 위법수집증거배제법칙 적용에 관한 비교법적 검토 = A Comparative Study on Application of Exclusionary Rule of the Illegally Obtained Evidence in Korean and Chinese Court

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "형사심판참고(刑事審判参考) 第930号, 第95集"

2 "형사심판참고(刑事審判参考) 第926号, 第95集"

3 "형사심판참고(刑事審判参考) 第926号, 第95集"

4 "형사심판참고(刑事審判参考) 第763号, 第97集"

5 "형사심판참고(刑事審判参考) 第1039号, 第101集"

6 정웅석, "형사소송법" 대명출판사 2014

7 이주원, "형사소송법" 박영사 2019

8 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2016

9 백형구, "형사소송법" 법원사 2012

10 배종대, "형사소송법" 홍문사 2016

11 노명선, "형사소송법" 성균관대학교 출판부 2015

12 이창현, "형사소송법" 2017

13 김종철, "형사법과 헌법이념 제1권" 박영사 2006

14 성낙인, "절차적 정의와 법의 지배" 박영사 2003

15 김재중, "위법수집증거배제법칙 적용기준" 법학연구소 21 (21): 35-68, 2010

16 신동운, "신형사소송법" 법문사 2014

17 儲槐植, "善待社会危害性観念——従我国刑法第13条但書説起" (3) : 2002

18 郝銀鐘, "刑事訴訟双重目的論之批判与重构" 2005

19 김봉수, "‘재량적’ 위법수집증거배제(론)에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 왜 유독 ‘비진술증거’에 대해서만 ‘재량적 배제’를 인정하려 하는가? -" 한국비교형사법학회 11 (11): 189-212, 2009