현행 조서관련 규정에 관한 비판적인 고찰

권영법(Kwon, Young Bub) 한국법학원 2012 저스티스 Vol.- No.131

재판에서 범죄사실은 모든 소송관계자가 참여한 가운데 원칙적으로 구두에 의해 재구성되어야 하고 법관은 직접적인 증거에 대한 조사가 가능한 경우 간접적인 증거에 의해 이를 대체해서는 안 된다. 특히 인적 증거의 경우 원칙적으로 선서 하에 교호신문을 통해 진술을 탄핵하고 법관은 증인의 태도를 통해 진술의 의미와 신빙성을 파악해야 한다. 이러한 요청은 대륙법계에서는 구두주의와 직접주의 원칙의 형태로 나타났고, 영미법계에는 전문법칙의 형태로 발현되었다. 미국에는 2004년 Crawford 판결에서 대면권에 기하여 전문법칙의 예외를 제한하였고, 대륙법계 역시 유럽인권협약에서 정한 대면권에 기하여 직접주의 원칙을 강화하고 있다. 그러나 현행 형사소송법 제312조의 2부터 316조까지의 규정을 살펴보면, 이러한 규정들은 오늘날 문명국가들이 채택하고 있는 대면권에 의해 한층 강화한 전문법칙 내지 직접주의와는 현격한 차이가 있음을 볼 수 있다. 특히 수사기관이 작성한 조서의 경우, 자백하는 경우 외에는 법정에서의 현출이 엄격하게 차단되어 있고, 자백하는 경우에도 입법례에 따라 차이가 있지만 대부분 조서 자체가 증거로 허용되지 않고 있음에도 현행 형사소송법은 피고인의 자백 여부와 관계없이 성립인정 등의 일정한 요건만 갖추면 이를 허용하고 있다. 피고인 아닌 자의 진술서의 경우도 원칙적으로 진술서 자체가 제출되는 것이 아니라 증인의 형태로 법정에 현출됨이 원칙임에도 현행 형사소송법은 성립인정 등에 의해 법정에 이를 현출되도록 허용하고 있다. 더구나 수사기관에서는 아직도 일제시대 때부터 실시해 오던 조서 작성방식인 문답식 조서 작성방식을 그대로 답습해오고 있다. 위와 같이 조서의 증거능력을 쉽게 인정하는 독특한 입법태도로 인해 증인의 생생한 증언을 통한 심증형성 보다는 조서에 의한 심증형성이 빈번하게 이루어지고 있는 것이 형사사법의 현실이 되고 있다. 이러한 서면재판은 국민의 법관에 의한 재판을 받을 권리, 대면권, 법적 청문권 등 국민의 헌법상의 기본권을 실질적으로 침해하게 되며, 형사소송의 원칙인 구두주의, 직접주의 원칙을 훼손하게 되고, 형사소송의 이념인 진실발견과 절차적 정의에도 반하게 된다. 본고에서는 현행 조서관련 규정을 검토하기 전, 우선 조서제도의 연원을 살펴보고 현행 조서관련 규정의 입법적인 연혁을 검토하였고, 비교법적인 고찰로 미국과 독일에서의 최근까지의 논의를 검토하였다. 또한 이들 규정과 현행 조서관련 규정을 비교ㆍ검토하여 입법론적인 대안과 해석론적인 시사점을 얻고자 하였다. 아울러 현재 수사기관이 하고 있는 문답식 조서의 법적인 문제점을 검토하였고, 조서의 허용성에 대한 입법론적인 대안을 제시하였다. In principle, a crime should be orally stated in a trial with participation of all parties of a legal procedure. Also, judges are not allowed to substitute direct evidences with indirect evidences when an investigation for direct evidence is possible. Especially in case of personal evidence, prosecutors must impeach statements only by cross-examination. These requirements are reflected as Unmittelbarkeit and Mundlichkeit in the Continental legal systems, and as the hearsay rule in Anglo-American legal systems. However, Articles 312-2 to 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Korea are fundamentally different from both the hearsay rule and Unmittelbarkeit. In most legal systems, presentation of protocols of examination in a trial is strictly prohibited except when a defendant confesses one’s crime. Even when there is a confession, most of protocols of examination are not allowed as evidence in a trial. However, according to the current Criminal Procedure Code, evidence is admissible as long as it meets certain requirements regardless of whether the defendant made a confession or not. In case of protocols of examination on those who are not a defendant, the statement should be presented in a trial in the form of testimony, not by submitting such protocols of examination itself, in most legal systems. However, current Criminal Procedure Code allows submitting such protocols of examination. The reality of current criminal justice is that the establishment of conviction is made by protocols of examination rather than by live testimony of witnesses because of the unique criminal system in Korea. Trials that are severely dependent on written document may infrings the basic rights in the Constitution, such as the right to be tried by judicial officers, the right to have interview with judge, and Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehor. It also harms Unmittelbarkeit and Mundlichkeit. This study explores the origin of current system of protocols of examination and reviews current regulations related to protocols of examination. The legislation history of current regulations related to protocols of examination and recent discussions in United States and Germany are reviewed in comparative perspective. And comparative analysis on the regulations related to protocols of examination in Korea, the United States and Germany are presented to produce alternative suggestions. Finally, legal issues with question-answer style protocols of examination enforced by investigating agencies are examined and alternative legislative suggestions are presented.

조세범칙조사시 세무공무원이 작성한 심문조서의 증거능력

김태희 한국세법학회 2019 조세법연구 Vol.25 No.3

조세범칙조사는 「조세범 처벌법」 위반행위를 확정하고 이에 관한 증거를 수집하는 활동으로서 관할 지방검찰청 검사장이 지명한 세무공무원이 실시한다. 세무공무원은 조세범칙조사시 출석요구, 자료제출요구, 심문, 압수․수색 등 임의적․강제적 직무권한을 행사한다. 조세범칙조사 결과 범죄의 확증을 얻었을 때에는 통고처분 또는 고발의 조치를 취하게 된다. 한편 형사소송법은 ‘세무’ 등 특별한 사항에 관하여 사법경찰관리의 직무를 행할 자와 그 직무의 범위를 법률로써 정하도록 하여 특별사법경찰관리 제도를 두고 있는데 이에 따라 제정된 사법경찰관직무법에는 세무공무원이 누락되어 있다. 「조세범 처벌절차법」에 조세범칙조사와 관련된 세무공무원의 직무 및 권한을 규정하고 있을 뿐이다. 따라서 세무공무원을 수사기관으로 인정할 수 있는지, 그가 조세범칙조사시 작성한 심문조서를 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서로 볼 수 있는지 논란이 발생한다. 조세범칙조사를 실시하는 세무공무원을 수사기관이 아닌 행정공무원으로 볼 경우 형사소송법상의 적법절차원칙이 적용되지 않고 그가 작성한 심문조서는 형사소송법 제313조 제1항이 적용되어 피고인이 성립의 진정이나 내용을 부인하는지 여부를 불문하고 작성자인 세무공무원이 성립의 진정함을 진술하는 것만으로 증거능력이 부여된다. 이에 이 글에서는 ⅰ) 조세범칙조사는 범죄의 수사(搜査)이며 ⅱ) 세무공무원은 형사소송법상의 특별사법경찰관리에 해당하므로 ⅲ) 그가 작성한 범칙혐의자 심문조서는 ‘검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서’이기 때문에 형사소송법 제312조 제3항에 따라 피고인이 내용을 인정할 때에 한하여 증거능력이 부여된다는 점을 논증한다. As a tax offense investigation is the activity confirming violations of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act and collecting the evidence about the violations, the tax officials designated by the chief of the competent district prosecutors’ office enforce a tax offense investigation. The tax officials exercise an arbitrary and compulsory official authority like the request for attendance and submission of materials, interrogation, seizure and search, etc. in a tax offense investigation. When the tax officials secure positive evidence of the crime through the tax offense investigation, they take measures for disposition of notification and accusation. The Criminal Procedure Act, meanwhile, has a special judicial police officers system and requires the qualification and scope of function of judicial police officers in regard to special matters like ‘taxes’, etc. to be set by Acts, however the Act On The Persons Performing The Duties Of Judicial Police Officers And The Scope Of Their Duties enacted in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act omits the tax officials. The Procedure For The Punishment Of Tax Offenses Act only provides tax officials’ duty and authority related to tax offense investigation. Therefore it causes controversy whether tax officials can be investigation agencies, and whether the protocol of interrogation prepared by tax officials can be the protocol of examination of a criminal suspect prepared by investigation agencies. If tax officials who enforce the tax offense investigation are considered administrative officials, not investigation agencies, the principle of the due process of law under the Criminal Procedure Act is not applied, and the protocol of interrogation prepared by the tax officials is given the admissibility of evidence just by stating the authenticity in formation by the tax officials as a preparing person under Article 313 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regardless of whether the criminal defendant denies the authenticity in formation or contents of the protocol. Therefore, this paper demonstrates that ⅰ) the tax offense investigation is the investigation of crimes, ⅱ) the tax officials are special judicial police officers under the Criminal Procedure Act, therefore ⅲ) the protocol of interrogation prepared by the tax officials is given to the admissibility of evidence only for admitting its contents by the criminal defendant under Article 312 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the protocol of interrogation of a tax offense suspect prepared by the tax officials is ‘a protocol of examination of a criminal suspect, prepared by any investigative institution other than a prosecutor’.

공판중심주의 틀에서 수사와 입증

박형관 한국형사소송법학회 2017 형사소송 이론과 실무 Vol.9 No.2

The premise of the Trial Base Principle(the principle of emphasizing the value of open court trial procedure) is that the decision making process in which a case is rendered a guilty or not guilty verdict should be formulated in open court examinations. This is in contrast to ‘the written protocol base trial’ practice wherein the role of the court was limited to examining and confirming the validity of the contents of the written protocols submitted by investigation agencies. The new principle would in effect reinforce transparency in the investigation stages and the pretrial preparation procedure, introduce discovery, and emphasize the defendant’s rights in cross examination. A movement to transition from a written protocol base trial to one that emphasized the trial base principle resulted in the revision of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act(KCPA). The move towards the trial base principle resulted in many changes in investigations and proof of evidence activities. To start, the investigation organization must begin to regard the suspects not merely as objects of criminal procedure but those who maintain a quasi defendant’s legal position In cases where the suspects have been arrested and accused of serious crimes, the interrogation must be recorded in order to enhance transparency in investigation stage. And the courts set stricter standards in evaluating the admissibility and probative value of statements made during the investigation period in addition to reinforcing adversarial examination procedures. Realistically speaking, it would be unreasonable to insist on the trial base principle in all cases. It would be far more practical to introduce summary trial procedure whereby trivial cases can be promptly dissolved. Further, it would be worthwhile to consider the introduction of a more flexible evidence examining procedure in cases where one party consents to the use of evidence presented by the other party. The appointment of deputy judges and deputy prosecutors system would also serve to alleviate the crushing load of cases of which a substantial portion may not require a lengthy trial base procedure resulting in a far more efficient turnaround. The realization of the trail base principle is an on-going process demanding continuous improvement. To that end, cooperation, collaboration is imperative to the betterment of our justice system by both the courts and investigation agencies. 공판중심주의는 유, 무죄의 심증형성이 공개된 법정에서의 심리에 의하여 이루어져야 한다는 원칙이다. 과거 형사재판실무를 돌이켜보면 법원이 수사기관이 작성한 조서의 내용을 확인하고 추인하는 이른바 조서재판의 관행이 있었다. 이를 극복하고자 공판중심주의를 강조하는 흐름이 대두되어 2007년에 형사소송법 일부 개정이 이루어졌다. 위 개정을 통하여 수사과정의 투명성이 강화되고 공판 전 준비절차, 증거개시제도 등이 도입되었으며 증거법 분야에서 피고인의 반대신문권 보장이 강조되었다공판중심주의의 강화는 수사와 입증활동에 많은 변화를 가져오게 되었다. 그 흐름에 맞추어 수사기관도 피의자를 단지 수사의 객체가 아니라 당사자에 준하는 지위를 누리는 주체로 적극적으로 인식하여야 한다. 체포, 구속된 피의자나 중요 사건의 피의자를 조사하는 경우 영상녹화를 통하여 수사과정의 투명성을 더욱 높일 필요도 있다. 입증에 있어서도 수사단계 진술의 증거능력이나 증명력 판단에 있어 법원이 종래보다 엄격한 기준을 제시하고 있고 당사자주의적인 심리절차도 강화되었다. 사실 모든 사건에서 완전한 공판중심주의적 심리절차를 구현하기 어렵다. 따라서 경미한 사건을 신속하게 처리하는 간이재판절차를 도입할 필요가 있다. 당사자가 증거에 동의하는 경우 증거조사를 간이화하는 방안이나 부판사나 부검사 제도의 도입을 적극 고려할 필요도 있다. 바람직한 공판중심주의의 구현은 지속적인 개선이 필요한 동적인 과정이다. 이러한 형사사법 절차의 개선에 관한 목표를 달성하기 위하여 형사사법의 여러 주체들이 협력하고 지혜를 모으려는 공동 노력이 필요하다.

기타 조서에 기재된 수사기관 진술의 증거능력 -대법원 2019. 11. 14. 선고 2019도13290 판결을 중심으로-

김희균,강대평 가천대학교 법학연구소 2024 가천법학 Vol.17 No.2

공판이 진실발견의 장이 되어야 한다는 데는 많은 사람들이 동의할 것이다. 우리 법 제310조의2도 법정에서의 진술을 최상위에 두고 있다. 이 점은 대륙법의 직접심리주의이든 영미법의 전문법칙이든 차이가 없다. 사실 판단자가 법정에서 진술을 듣고 진실을 발견하라고 한다. 하지만 이러한 원칙에 모두 예외를 두고 있다. 전문법칙에도 법정 외 진술을 사실인정의 자료로 쓰는 예외가 꽤 규정되어 있고, 직접심리주의에서도 법관 앞에서 한 진술은 법정 외 진술이어도 증거로 할 수 있는 길을 열어두고 있다. 이제 문제는 수사기관이 작성한 서류라면 조금 더 폭넓게 증거능력의 예외를 인정할 것인가? 검증조서에 수사기관의 목격 진술을 적고, 압수조서나 수사보고서에도 적게 할 것인가, 하는 점이다. 그건 아니라고 본다. 예외가 원칙을 훼손하지 않도록 하기 위해서는 우리 대법원이 어느 지점에선가 ‘더는 안 된다’는 말을 해 주어야 한다. 검증조서와 압수조서, 수사보고서에 들어가 있는 진술의 증거능력에 대한 법원의 꼼꼼하고 단호한 검토를 기대하는 이유다. 중요한 것은, 증거서류 규정의 합리적 해석을 통해 공판중심주의를 강화하는 것이기 때문이다. It would be agreed that a trial should be a forum for discovery of truth. Article 310-2 of the KCPL shows that the statements before the judge in court is the most important. It is the principle, though with exceptions. It is now increasing for the investigative agency’s statement to be included in the Protocol of Seizure and the Investigation Report, as well as in the Protocol of Evidence Inspection. In order to ensure that the exception does not undermine the principle, the Supreme Court should say ‘no more’. The Court has to examine thoroughly and decisively the admissibility of the statements contained in the above mentioned protocols. That’s why the important thing is to strengthen the Principle of Court-Centered Trial through a reasonable interpretation of the Evidence Clauses.

2016·17학년도 역사 중등교원 임용시험과 중국 근·현대사 사료문항의 부정확성

許元(Huh, Won) 역사교육연구회 2017 역사교육 Vol.144 No.-

The purpose of this study is to analyze Chinese modern history questions, and search for the problem and suggest desirable directions for the examination. Specifically, it analyzed the issues related to the Boxer Protocol (1901) and the common main principles of the Chinese People"s Political Consultative Conference (1949). It examined whether the basic contents of the information presented in question corresponded to the content of the original historical materials, whether the content of the original materials was faithfully translated, and whether there was any flaw with the accuracy and validity as examination questions. As a result, it was found that there were a number of problems in the translation of the basic information and the historical materials of the 2016 Boxer Protocol questions and the 2017 Common Main Principles questions. In addition, the general statement, which has a high possibility of being referenced by the examiners and the test-takes, was reviewed to look for problems and inaccuracies. It emphasized that when making examination questions through this process, it is necessary to prioritize the work of comparing with the original historical materials. It also pointed out that reference books and material usage should be done with caution. Since various errors were found in the related general statements and internet data review results.

개정 형사소송법상 공동피고인의 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 ― 피의자신문조서 관련조항의 해석을 중심으로 ―

이상윤 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2020 서울법학 Vol.28 No.2

2020.2.4. The amended Criminal Procedure Law (Act No. 16924) unified the evidential Admissibility system of the Suspect-Interrogation Protocol recoded by the investigative agency regardless of the author. This amendment was made under the intention of strengthening the principle of court-oriented Trials and direct cross-examination through the resolution of the difference in the Admissibility of evidence in the Suspect-Interrogation Protocol by investigation agencies and the guarantee of human rights. Accordingly, by reviewing the theories and precedents regarding the evidential Admissibility of the Co-defendant's Suspect-Interrogation Protocol, which was discussed on the premise of the dualization of the evidential Admissibility system of the Suspect-Interrogation Protocol under the current Criminal Procedure Law, the amended Articles of the Suspect-Interrogation Protocol I tried a new interpretation of. ① In the interpretation of Article 312 (1), (3) and (4) of the Suspect-Interrogation Protocol under the amended Criminal Procedure Law, the exceptions to Hearsay Rule do not prejudice the principle of court-oriented Trials and direct cross examination, and are accompanied by these principles. Consideration should be given to the fact that it contributes to the exercise of the right to proper punishment through the discovering objective facts. ② Article 312 (1) of the amended Criminal Procedure Law deleted the phrase “a criminal defendant when the criminal defendant was the stage of criminal suspect” and newly added the phrase “the criminal defendant, who was the suspect at the time”. The same interpretation of the phrase “the criminal defendant, who was the suspect at the time.” in the two Articles is in line with the purpose of unification of the evidential Admissibility system. ③ “the criminal defendant, who was the suspect at the time” means the defendant, and the Co-defendant does not. Therefore, the evidential Admissibility of the Co-defendant's Suspect-Interrogation Protocol shall be determined on the basis of Article 312 (4). As a result, the Co-defendant's Suspect-Interrogation Protocol is treated as a testifier's Protocol of statement. This is because the exceptional recognition of evidential Admissibility of Hearsay documents subject to the defendant's guarantee of the right to cross-examine against the Co-defendant not only meets the purpose of the Hearsay Rule, but can also be said as a reasonable balance between the principles of due process and th principles of truth-finding. However, in consideration of the defendant's position as a Co-defendant, the cross examine should be conducted by separating Oral-proceeding, such as practice and precedent, and giving the Co-defendant a status as a witness. 2020.2.4. 개정된 형사소송법(법률 제16924호)은 작성주체를 불문하고 수사기관 작성의 피의자신문조서의 증거능력체계를 일원화하였다. 이번 개정은 검・경수사권 조정에 따른 수사기관별 피의자신문조서의 증거능력차이의 해소와 인권보장을 통한 공판중심주의와 직접심리주의의 강화라는 취지하에서 이루어졌다. 이에 따라 현행 형사소송법상 피의자신문조서의 증거능력체계의 이원화(요건의 차등)를 전제로 논의되었던 공동피고인의 피의자신문조서의 증거능력에 관한 학설 및 판례를 검토하여 개정된 피의자신문조서의 관련규정에 대한 새로운 해석을 모색해 보았다. ① 개정 형사소송법상 피의자신문조서에 관한 제312조 제1항, 제3항, 제4항을 해석함에 있어서는 전문법칙의 예외규정들이 공판중심주의와 직접심리주의를 저해하는 것이 아니고 이런 원칙들과 함께 실체진실발견을 통한 적정한 형벌권의 행사에 기여한다는 측면을 충분히 고려하여야 한다. ② 개정 형사소송법 제312조 제1항은 “피고인이 된 피의자” 문구를 삭제하고 제312조 제3항과 동일한 “그 피의자였던 피고인”이라는 문구를 신설하였다. 두 조문의 “그 피의자였던 피고인”이라는 문구는 동일하게 해석하는 것이 증거능력체계의 일원화 취지에 부합한다. ③ “그 피의자였던 피고인”은 당해피고인을 의미하고 공동피고인은 이에 해당하지 않는다. 따라서 공동피고인의 피의자신문조서의 증거능력은 제312조 제4항에 의해서 판단하여야 한다. 그 결과 공동피고인의 피의자신문조서는 참고인진술조서로 취급된다. 당해피고인의 반대신문권 보장을 조건으로 한 전문서류의 예외적 증거능력부여가 전문법칙의 취지에도 부합할 뿐만 아니라, 적법절차의 원칙과 실체진실발견주의의 합리적인 조화라고 볼 수 있기 때문이다. 다만 공동피고인의 피고인적 지위를 고려하여 실무 및 판례와 같이 변론을 분리하여 공동피고인에게 증인으로서 지위를 부여해서 반대신문이 행해져야 할 것이다.

형사소송법 제312조의 영상녹화물의 증거능력

류지영 중앙법학회 2008 中央法學 Vol.10 No.4

In Korea there was a substantial change in criminal procedure act since 1.1. 2008, The new type of system was introduced to the revised criminal procedure act, especially that is the induction of the cinematographic work system in time of examination of a suspect or witness. As a symbolic matter, prosecutor interrogation is microcosm for some of our most fundamental conflicts about the norms that should guide state conduct, particularly manipulative, deceptive, and coercive conduct in the modern era. In short, prosecutor interrogation and confession-taking go to heart of our conception of procedure justice system and society we wish to have. The induction of the cinematographic work system is the form a link in the chain of this program. The ultimate goal of law and the criminal justice system would be the realization of justice. There has been big difference between prosecution and court to construe the Korean criminal procedure act §312. But we should think over the background that the cinematographic work has been introduced to criminal procedure act. At first, the general rule excluding hearsay evidence cannot be fully understood without a clear understanding of what hearsay is. Written record by the prosecutor is a example of hearsay. The cinematographic work system is only complementary of written record by the prosecutor. To allow admissibility of evidence of cinematographic work is confusion of the means with the end that statement has been transmitted without distorting a fact. Second, cinematographic work is the measures to keep watch on the investigation agency. So cinematographic work has to be functioned as observation measures. Third, the material truth is not objective or substantial in the view of natural science, but the judgement of mutual subjective and normative. Cinematographic work is not measures directly to prove the truth. Fourth, In Korean trial criminal procedure, in case of witness examination, each party was called for matters subject to examination by the full bench, and there were many cases that the content of examination is detailed, but answer is short, for the most part only 「yes」 or 「no」 can be chosen. In these cases it is very difficult to prove the change of statement by cinematographic work. Fifth, to wipe out the distrust of people's so called protocol trial, It couldn't consent to grant admissibility of evidence of cinematographic work. According to the view of revised criminal procedure act, the cinematographic work is to used the measures only to recall to witness's mind. Sixth, the cinematographic work is a possibility with a great potential of conviction, without regard truth or falsehood. In conclusion, If the cinematographic work would be allowed the admissibility of evidence or impeachment of witness or accused, it is inconsistent to the sprit of revised criminal procedure act and the idea of oral statement. In Korea there was a substantial change in criminal procedure act since 1.1. 2008, The new type of system was introduced to the revised criminal procedure act, especially that is the induction of the cinematographic work system in time of examination of a suspect or witness. As a symbolic matter, prosecutor interrogation is microcosm for some of our most fundamental conflicts about the norms that should guide state conduct, particularly manipulative, deceptive, and coercive conduct in the modern era. In short, prosecutor interrogation and confession-taking go to heart of our conception of procedure justice system and society we wish to have. The induction of the cinematographic work system is the form a link in the chain of this program. The ultimate goal of law and the criminal justice system would be the realization of justice. There has been big difference between prosecution and court to construe the Korean criminal procedure act §312. But we should think over the background that the cinematographic work has been introduced to criminal procedure act. At first, the general rule excluding hearsay evidence cannot be fully understood without a clear understanding of what hearsay is. Written record by the prosecutor is a example of hearsay. The cinematographic work system is only complementary of written record by the prosecutor. To allow admissibility of evidence of cinematographic work is confusion of the means with the end that statement has been transmitted without distorting a fact. Second, cinematographic work is the measures to keep watch on the investigation agency. So cinematographic work has to be functioned as observation measures. Third, the material truth is not objective or substantial in the view of natural science, but the judgement of mutual subjective and normative. Cinematographic work is not measures directly to prove the truth. Fourth, In Korean trial criminal procedure, in case of witness examination, each party was called for matters subject to examination by the full bench, and there were many cases that the content of examination is detailed, but answer is short, for the most part only 「yes」 or 「no」 can be chosen. In these cases it is very difficult to prove the change of statement by cinematographic work. Fifth, to wipe out the distrust of people's so called protocol trial, It couldn't consent to grant admissibility of evidence of cinematographic work. According to the view of revised criminal procedure act, the cinematographic work is to used the measures only to recall to witness's mind. Sixth, the cinematographic work is a possibility with a great potential of conviction, without regard truth or falsehood. In conclusion, If the cinematographic work would be allowed the admissibility of evidence or impeachment of witness or accused, it is inconsistent to the sprit of revised criminal procedure act and the idea of oral statement.

공소사실을 자백하는 피고인의 증거인부 의견에 관한 검토 - 공소사실을 부인하는 공동피고인인 공범자의 피의자신문조서에 대하여 -

윤태석 ( Tae Seok Yoon ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2015 法學硏究 Vol.25 No.2

The Criminal Procedure Code Article 318 allows admissibility of evidence according to the consent of the party. Regarding the nature of this consent of evidence, the majority of scholars and the Supreme Court define it as the ``waiver of the right to cross-examination.`` Most of the court precedents applying this article are related to the accused`s consent of evidence which can act as a disadvantage by proving the facts charged to be guilty. The reason is that the defendant denying the charges will not consent to any evidence that acts as a disadvantage against him, and the prosecutor will not present any evidence that is not related to the defendant`s guilt or innocence, and the evidence proving the defendant guilty is not in need of strict admissibility of evidence. Therefore, the defendant confessing to the facts charged against him is in no need to wield his right to cross-examination`` to impeach the reliability of the evidence that he has consented to, since there is enough evidence to prove him guilty. Applying this theory of the ``waiver of the right to cross-examination`` will not bring about any unfair outcome. However, when the defendant and the accomplice are in court as co-defendants, the former confessing to and the latter denying the facts charged, where there is no other evidence besides the co-defendant`s confession, the situation dramatically changes. In particular, when the protocol of examination by the judicial police about the statements of the co-defendant denying the charges in court only partly corresponds to the other co-defendant`s confession and mostly counters it, the confessing co-defendant needs supporting evidence. Thus the confessing co-defendant will need to consent to the evidence and acquire admissibility in the minimum range of the evidence being supporting evidence, instead of not consenting to it because it counters his statements. In this case, since it only partly corresponds to the statements of the co-defendant, the rest of the evidence having acquired admissibility must be thoroughly impeached during the interrogation of the suspect. Although allowing admissibility on parts of the evidence in question can solve this problem, partly allowing admissibility on a whole statement of one person regarding one crime must be denied. Considering this point, the Criminal Procedure Code Article 318 must be interpreted as a rule purely providing admissibility of evidence, not relating to the waiver of the right to cross-examination regarding reliability. Even if it means waivering the right to cross-examination, one must reach the conclusion that it is only limited to the provision of admissibility of evidence.

피고인의 공소사실과 관련한 공동피고인에 대한 경찰작성 신문조서의 증거능력

김봉수(Kim, Bong-Su) 한국형사법학회 2010 형사법연구 Vol.22 No.1

【대상판례】 대법원 2009. 10. 15. 선고 2009도1889판결. “형사소송법 제312조 제3항은 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 당해 피고인에 대한 피의자신문조서를 유죄의 증거로 하는 경우뿐만 아니라, 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 당해 피고인과 공범관계에 있는 다른 피고인이나 피의자에 대한 피의자신문조서를 당해 피고인에 대한 유죄의 증거로 채택할 경우에도 적용된다. 따라서 당해 피고인과 공범관계에 있는 공동피고인에 대해 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 피의자신문조서는 그 공동피고인의 법정진술에 의하여 성립의 진정이 인정되더라도 당해 피고인이 공판기일에서 그 조서의 내용을 부인하면 증거능력이 부정된다. 그리고 이러한 경우 그 공동피고인이 법정에서 경찰수사 도중 피의자신문조서에 기재된 것과 같은 내용으로 진술하였다는 취지로 증언하였다고 하더라도, 이러한 증언은 원진술자인 공동피고인이 그 자신에 대한 경찰 작성의 피의자신문조서의 진정성립을 인정하는 취지에 불과하여 위 조서와 분리하여 독자적인 증거가치를 인정할 것은 아니므로, 앞서 본 바와 같은 이유로 위 조서의 증거능력이 부정되는 이상 위와 같은 증언 역시 이를 유죄 인정의 증거로 쓸 수 없다”【참조판례】 대법원 2004. 7. 15. 선고 2003도7185 전원합의체 판결“형사소송법 제312조 제2항은 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 당해 피고인에 대한 피의자신문조서를 유죄의 증거로 하는 경우뿐만 아니라 검사 이외의 수사기관이 작성한 당해피고인과 공범관계에 있는 다른 피고인이나 피의자에 대한 피의자신문조서를 당해 피고인에 대한 유죄의 증거로 채택할 경우에도 적용되는바, 당해 피고인과 공범관계가 있는 다른 피의자에 대한 검사 이외의 수사기관 작성의 피의자신문조서는 그 피의자의 법정진술에 의하여 그 성립의 진정이 인정되더라도 당해 피고인이 공판기일에서 그 조서의 내용을 부인하면 증거능력이 부정되므로 그 당연한 결과로 그 피의자신문조서에 대하여는 사 망 등 사유로 인하여 법정에서 진술할 수 없는 때에 예외적으로 증거능력을 인정하는 규정인 형사소송법 제314조가 적용되지 아니한다” In 2007, the Code of Korean Criminal Procedure had been revised on a large scale. But a lot of interpretative problems surrounding the protocol prepared by public prosecutor or judicial police officer have remained in the reformed Code of Korean Criminal Procedure. In the Code of Korean Criminal Procedure, the interpretative controversy over the admissibility of evidence about the police's protocol of examination against codefendant is a typical example of those problems. In the first place, with this matter, the applicable clauses are Article 312③ that "a protocol prepared by any investigative institution other than a public prosecutor for examination of a suspect is admissible as evidence, only if it was prepared in compliance with the due process and proper method and the defendant, who was the suspect at the time, or his defense counsel admits its contents in a preparatory hearing or a trial" and Article 312④ that "a protocol in which a public prosecutor or a judicial police officer recorded a statement of any person other than the defendant is admissible as evidence, only if it was prepared in compliance with the due process and proper method, it is proved by a statement made by the original stater on a preparatory hearing or a trial, a video-recorded product or any other objective means that the contents of the protocol are the same as what he stated before the public prosecutor or judicial police officer, and the defendant or his defense counsel has an opportunity to examine the original stater in relation to its contents in a preparatory hearing or a trial: Provided, That it is admissible only when it is proved that the statement recorded in the protocol was made in a particularly reliable state". But, as stated above rulings, the Korean Supreme Court makes a application of Article 312③ over the admissibility of evidence about the police's protocol of examination against codefendant. This application of a law can be understand in an inevitable interpretation considering the specific relation of the codefendant to the defendant.

공범에 대한 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 소고(小考)

이창섭 한국비교형사법학회 2010 비교형사법연구 Vol.12 No.2

Accomplice is ‘any person other than the defendant’ in Article 312 ④ of the Criminal Procedure Act, not ‘the defendant’ in Article 312 ①, ③. So the protocol of a suspect-examination where a statement of accomplice is recorded may be admitted as evidence as follows. (1) when accomplice is not a co-defendant, the evidential admissibility of that protocol is judged on the basis of Article 312 ④. But (2) when accomplice is a co-defendant, the evidential admissibility of it is judged on the basis of Article 312 ③ or ④. In other words, if that protocol was drawn up by public prosecutor, the evidential admissibility of it is judged on the basis of Article 312 ④. if it was drawn up by judicial police officer, Supreme Court says, it may be admitted as evidence on the basis of Article 312 ③. The place of Supreme Court can be evaluated as the result of analogy out of consideration of the defendant's profit. Nevertheless, we shall consider doing away with the distinction in the requirement of evidential admissibility between a protocol drawn up by public prosecutor and a protocol by judicial police officer(de lege ferenda).