증인신문 절차 및 기법에 관한 연구

김주석(Kim, Joo-Seok),김정환 사법정책연구원 2016 사법정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.2016 No.-

A court shall determine, by its free conviction, whether or not an allegation of facts is true, taking account of the whole purport of pleadings and the results of examination of evidence, on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity in accordance with the principles of logic and experience(Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Code). Accordingly, whether to take the evidence presented in a lawsuit in order to find the truth is left to trial judges, and it cannot be said that there is any probative superiority depending on the type of evidence, be it documentary evidence or witness examination. Nevertheless, practically, it is undeniable that testimony has been considered as inferior evidence compared to documentary evidence in Korea. In addition, the propriety of the administration of proceedings and sua sponte examination have been deemed as playing subsidiary role at best under the adversarial cross examination system. Recently, a more cautious approach is being taken towards witness examination due to the implementation of mandatory recording of court hearings. From the perspective of a judge as a fact-finder, however, witness examination is an important means for forming conviction on the substance of the case when objective evidence such as documentary evidence is insufficient. It can also be the means to verify the conviction already formed at the final stage of evidence examination. There are plenty of cases where the outcome of the litigation depends on the credibility of testimonies. Witness examination can be a useful tool for truth-finding. It can also enhance the level of public confidence in trials just by its smooth execution. The recent implementation of mandatory recording could give us an opportunity to increase the value of witness examination. Generally, there are two methods of witness examination: the Continental method that allows judges to lead the witness examination ex officio and the Anglo-American method that gives parties the power to lead it. In general, the Anglo-American approach may carry the risk of misleading witnesses or making them give biased testimony, but it can elicit more detailed testimony by letting the parties or attorneys who are already familiar with the case lead the examination and thereby allow fact-finders such as the jury or the bench to assess the testimony from a relatively objective stance. In contrast, the Continental approach has the advantage of reducing the risk of false testimony by making the witness recognize himself as ‘a witness of the court’ rather than ‘a witness of the party’, but it has the disadvanta e of making a cool-headed evaluation of the testimony more difficult. Korea is generally classified as a Continental law country. In terms of witness examination, however, we adopted the principle of cross-examination which is associated with the Anglo-American tradition. Yet, on the other hand, our system also adds some ex officio features such as allowing judges to intervene at any time during the parties’ interrogation. Therefore, the law and practice of other countries on witness examination can serve as a reference for understanding and utilizing the witness examination methods provided for in our legislation. Based on the understanding of the respective advantages and disadvantages of the cross-examination and the ex officio judicial examination, both methods need to be used flexibly depending on the nature of the case and witnesses. Judges who preside over witness examination and evaluate the testimony of witnesses can also refer to psychology and social science research. Research studies on human memory and behavior suggest that a witness’s statement can be vulnerable to many external influences such as interrogation methods, cognitive errors and biases. Also various interrogation techniques are devised for reducing the distortion of such statements caused by external influences. 민사소송에서 법원은 변론 전체의 취지와 증거조사의 결과를 참작하여 자유로운 심증으로 사회 정의와 형평의 이념에 입각하여 논리와 경험의 법칙에 따라 사실주장이 진실 한지 아닌지를 판단한다(민사소송법 제202조). 이에 따라 사실인정을 할 때 소송에 현출 된 증거자료 중 어느 것을 취할 것인지는 사실심 판사에게 일임되어 있고, 서증, 인증 등 증거의 종류에 따라 그 증명력에 우열이 있다고 할 수 없다. 그럼에도 불구하고 우리나라에서 증인은 서증에 비해 열등한 증거방법으로 여겨져 왔음은 부인할 수 없다. 또한 교호 신문제도 아래에서 법관의 적절한 소송지휘나 직권신문은 부차적이라는 인식도 적지 않았다. 최근 법정녹음의 시행으로 증인신문에 소극적인 경향도 일부 나타나고 있다. 그러나 사실발견자인 법관의 입장에서 증인신문은 서증 등 객관적 증거가 부족한 상황에서는 사건의 실체에 관한 심증을 형성하기 위한 중요한 수단이 되고, 증거조사의 최종 단계에서 이미 형성한 심증을 확인하는 수단이 되기도 한다. 증언의 신빙성 판단에 따라 소송의 승패가 좌우되는 경우도 얼마든지 있다. 증인신문은 활용하기에 따라 실체 진실규명을 위한 유용한 수단이 되고, 원활하게 진행되는 증인신문의 모습 자체만으로도 재판에 대한 신뢰를 높일 수 있다. 최근 법정녹음의 시행은 증인신문의 활용가치를 높일 수 있는 계기가 될 수 있다. 증인신문의 방식은 법관이 직권으로 증인신문을 주도하는 대륙법계 방식과 신청한 당사자가 증인신문을 주도하는 영미법계 방식으로 크게 구분된다. 일반적으로 영미법계 방식은 당사자가 증인으로 하여금 오도되거나 편향된 증언을 하게 할 위험성이 있지만, 사건의 내용을 가장 잘 아는 당사자나 그 대리인이 증인신문을 주도함으로써 상세한 부분까지 증언을 이끌어 낼 수 있고, 배심원단, 법관 등 사실발견자는 객관적 입장에서 증언 내용을 평가할 수 있다는 점이 장점으로 거론된다. 이에 대하여 대륙법계 방식은 증인으로 하여금 당사자의 증인이 아닌 법원의 증인이라는 인식을 가지게 하여 허위 증언의 위험성을 줄일 수 있는 장점이 있으나, 법원이 증인신문을 주도함으로써 증언의 냉정한 평가가 어려울 수 있다는 점이 단점으로 지적된다. 우리나라는 일반적으로 대륙법계 국가로 분류되나, 증인신문의 방식에서는 교호신문을 원칙으로 하고 있다. 그러면서 한편으로는 법관이 언제든지 직권으로 개입하여 신문할 수 있도록 하는 등 직권주의의 요소도 가미되어 있다. 각국의 증인신문에 관한 입법례 및 실무례는 우리 법령에서 정한 여러 증인신문 방식을 이해하고 활용하는 데에 참고가 될 수 있다. 교호신문과 직권신문의 각 장 점, 단점에 관한 이해를 바탕으로 사건과 증인의 특성에 따라 유연하게 이를 활용할 필요가 있다. 증인과 진술에 관한 심리학 등 사회과학적 연구도 증인신문을 진행하고 증언의 증거가치와 증명력을 평가해야 하는 법관에게 많은 참고가 될 수 있다. 인간의 기억, 행동에 대한 연구 결과는 증인의 진술이 신문 방법 등 여러 외부적 영향, 인지적 오류 및 편향 등에 의해 취약할 수 있다는 점을 시사한다. 외부적 영향 등에 의한 진술의 왜곡을 줄이고자 하는 다양한 신문 기법이 고안되기도 한다. 이러한 연구 성과들이 우리의 증인신문 실무 개선에도 도움이 될 것임은 물론이다. 본 연구는 주로 민사재판을 진행하는 법관의 입장에서 증인신문을 효과적으로 준비, 진행하는 데에 도움이 되는 정보를 제공하는 것에 중점을 두었다. 이를 위해 먼저 현행법상의 증인신문에 관한 규정과 실무례 등을 요약하여 정리하고, 미국, 독일, 프랑스, 일본 등 주요국의 증인신문 관련 법령과 그 해석, 적용을 둘러싼 논의를 소개하였으며, 관련된 사회과학적 연구 성과를 정리하여 소개하였다. 다음으로 이러한 내용과 함께 실무적으로 언급되는 증인신문의 다양한 노하우를 참고하여 법정녹음 환경하에서 법관이 증인신문을 진행하고 직접 신문을 하는 데에 유익하다고 생각되는 내용을 정리하고자 하였다. 본 연구가 우리나라의 증인신문 절차와 기법에 관한 실무 현황을 점검하고 합리적인 개선방안을 모색하는 논의에 도움이 되기를 기대한다.

증인신문 절차 및 기법에 관한 연 구

김주석 ( Kim Joo-seok ),김정환 사법정책연구원 2016 연구보고서 Vol.2016 No.12

A court shall determine, by its free conviction, whether or not an allegation of facts is true, taking account of the whole purport of pleadings and the results of examination of evidence, on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity in accordance with the principles of logic and experience(Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Code). Accordingly, whether to take the evidence presented in a lawsuit in order to find the truth is left to trial judges, and it cannot be said that there is any probative superiority depending on the type of evidence, be it documentary evidence or witness examination. Nevertheless, practically, it is undeniable that testimony has been considered as inferior evidence compared to documentary evidence in Korea. In addition, the propriety of the administration of proceedings and sua sponte examination have been deemed as playing subsidiary role at best under the adversarial cross examination system. Recently, a more cautious approach is being taken towards witness examination due to the implementation of mandatory recording of court hearings. From the perspective of a judge as a fact-finder, however, witness examination is an important means for forming conviction on the substance of the case when objective evidence such as documentary evidence is insufficient. It can also be the means to verify the conviction already formed at the final stage of evidence examination. There are plenty of cases where the outcome of the litigation depends on the credibility of testimonies. Witness examination can be a useful tool for truth-finding. It can also enhance the level of public confidence in trials just by its smooth execution. The recent implementation of mandatory recording could give us an opportunity to increase the value of witness examination. Generally, there are two methods of witness examination: the Continental method that allows judges to lead the witness examination ex officio and the Anglo-American method that gives parties the power to lead it. In general, the Anglo-American approach may carry the risk of misleading witnesses or making them give biased testimony, but it can elicit more detailed testimony by letting the parties or attorneys who are already familiar with the case lead the examination and thereby allow fact-finders such as the jury or the bench to assess the testimony from a relatively objective stance. In contrast, the Continental approach has the advantage of reducing the risk of false testimony by making the witness recognize himself as ‘a witness of the court’ rather than ‘a witness of the party’, but it has the disadvantage of making a cool-headed evaluation of the testimony more difficult. Korea is generally classified as a Continental law country. In terms of witness examination, however, we adopted the principle of cross-examination which is associated with the Anglo-American tradition. Yet, on the other hand, our system also adds some ex officio features such as allowing judges to intervene at any time during the parties’ interrogation. Therefore, the law and practice of other countries on witness examination can serve as a reference for understanding and utilizing the witness examination methods provided for in our legislation. Based on the understanding of the respective advantages and disadvantages of the cross-examination and the ex officio judicial examination, both methods need to be used flexibly depending on the nature of the case and witnesses. Judges who preside over witness examination and evaluate the testimony of witnesses can also refer to psychology and social science research. Research studies on human memory and behavior suggest that a witness’s statement can be vulnerable to many external influences such as interrogation methods, cognitive errors and biases. Also various interrogation techniques are devised for reducing the distortion of such statements caused by external influences. It is certain that these research studies will be helpful in improving our witness examination practices. This study is mainly focused on providing information to judges so as to help them prepare and preside over witness examination effectively in civil actions. For this purpose, I first summarize the existing laws and practices, and introduce the discussions in major foreign countries such as the U.S., Germany, France, and Japan surrounding the interpretation and application of their laws, and the relevant social science research studies in terms of witness examination. Afterwards, using these discussions as reference along with the various kinds of know-how traditionally mentioned in practice, I seek to gather and organize the ideas which may benefit judges in presiding over and directly carrying out witness examination under the mandatory recording system. Hopefully this research will help promote further discussions about assessing the current status of the witness examination procedure and interrogation methods in Korea and seeking reasonable measures of their improvement.

대형 경제 형사사건의 효율적인 관리 및 증거조사 방법에 관한 연구 – 각국의 경제 형사사건 전담재판부 운영 실태 분석을 중심으로

홍진표 ( Hong Jin-pyo ),계인국,안문희 사법정책연구원 2016 연구보고서 Vol.2016 No.16

Given limited judicial resources, it is no easy task to allocate significant time and money to complex and complicated economic criminal cases that are characteristic of a large number of witnesses and copious documentary evidence. Even if one were to attempt this, it is unable to render substantive justice by finding truth and punishing law offenders through trial-based proceedings. Thus, it is necessary to manage large-scale economic criminal cases and employ methods of evidence examination in an efficient manner. Korea and numerous other countries have developed various management systems for large-scale economic criminal cases given each country’s respective political, economic, social, and historical background. This research aims to identify the current state and problems of the Korean management system, and conduct a comparative analysis among other countries, based on which long-term and short-to middle term improvement measures are examined. The present research begins by expounding the definition and categorization of economic criminal cases in Korea, and articulating the general characteristics of Korean economic criminal trials that require more time and money on witness examination and other evidence examination compared to other criminal cases because the defendant often denies charges despite relatively low acquittal rates. It then look into the establishment and status of chambers that specialize in and exclusively hear economic criminal cases, the modus operandi and problems of the management and methods of evidence examination of complex economic criminal cases. Second, this research conducts a comparative analysis among different countries including Germany, France, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom identifying similarities and differences in methods of management and evidence examination. While Germany, France and Japan have specialized courts and chambers for complex economic criminal cases, the United States and the United Kingdom do not. In the aforementioned countries, case assignment is not often modified over the short run so as to prevent instability in the handling of criminal cases. Although minor differences remain over details of their respective management systems, the all aforementioned countries differentiate between complex economic cases or cases where charges are denied by the defendant and simple minor economic cases including economic cases where the defendant does not deny charges due to plea bargaining. There is a fast track for the latter for which the procedure is simplified and expedited. In terms of complex and complicated economic cases, there are various systems that help the court find the substantive truth efficiently by means of sorting issues and evidence through trial preparations and intensively conducting evidence examination on trial. Based on such a comparative analysis, the present research purports to examine and prescribe specific long- and short-term improvement measures for addressing problems of the current system and judicial practices in Korea. Such long- and short-term improvement measures should be proposed based on a comprehensive understanding of criminal law and criminal procedure, and the public’s consent on the importance of striking a balance of interests between the defendant and the victim, as well as peace and stability of our society governed by law. Hopefully, this research will contribute to growing discussions among not only scholars, experts and practicians in the relevant field but also the general public in presenting alternative policy and legislative proposals that effectively manage complex economic criminal cases and methods of evidence examination in Korea.