범죄수사 및 공판절차에 있어서 과학적 증거에 관한 연구: 과학적 증거의 증거가치와 과학적 신뢰성판단 문제를 중심으로

권창국 한국범죄심리학회 2010 한국범죄심리연구 Vol.6 No.3

Today, it is the most distinctive feature to use scientific evidence or forensic evidence as large scale in criminal investigation and trial. Generally speaking, the aim of using scientific evidence in criminal cases is laid in; first, changing the form of criminal investigation mainly not by using testimonial evidence but by using real evidence, for due process and protection of human rights, second, insuring reasonableness in facts finding procedure, etc. But there is the most important premise to have positive function of scientific evidence activated. That is, it is the problem of reliability of scientific evidence. Fact finders(Jury or Judges) as layperson not as expert of science can be led to erroneous direction by malfunction of scientific evidence, because of the tendency of layperson to overestimate perfectness of science and shortness of ability to understand the scientific and technological background aspects of evidence. So, the exact estimation of evidentiary reliability(screening junk science) is core problem in scientific evidence. In this study, I tried to introduce the criteria of estimating reliability of scientific evidence(including psychological and the other social scientific evidences) and forms of infra-structure, considering the unique situation of criminal investigation and trial in Korea. in conclusion, I have proposed dual standard for reliability of scientific evidence as a requisite of admissibility. That is, to prosecution, appling conservative standard, the other side, to defendant or suspects, we can apply more liberal standard. The basic of this logic is located in; first, making a gap in estimating the admissibility of forensic evidence between prosecution and defendant or suspect, the inferior defensive ability of defendant or suspect can be restored. So, we can realized substantial adversarial system in Korea criminal justice system. Second, this dual standard can be supported by constitutional principle like as, estimation of innocence until decision of guilty, guarantee of sufficient defensive opportunity to defendant, and so on. third, this consideration is on the hard fact of Korea that usually, defendants or suspects are short of opportunity to access to forensic experts & facilities by problem of economic or other reasons, comparing to prosecution or police, and there is short of a pool of neutral forensic experts & facilities. etc. And in estimating the weight of scientific evidence, I have proposed that scientific evidence has not to be used independently for personal identification, in stead, has to be used with other evidence, simultaneously. 과학적 수사기법내지 과학적 증거는 사실판단의 합리성과 객관성을 보장함과 동시에 자백등 진술 증거에 집중한 수사방식에서 객관적 물증을 중심으로 한 탈 자백적 수사방식으로 패턴변화를 유발시킴으로써, 수사절차에서의 인권침해우려를 해소할 수 있는 점에서 실천적 의미를 갖고 있다. 그러나 소위 CSI 효과로 지칭되는 예에서 알 수 있듯이, 과학적 증거는 배경지식이나 관련 판단능력이 부족한 일반인으로서의 사실판단주체에게 '막연하지만 절대적 신뢰감(hallucination of scientific reliability or soundness)'을 주게 됨으로써, 결정적 오판원인으로 기능할 수도 있다. 결국, 과학적 증거의 활용에 있어서, 이러한 부정적 효과를 최소화할 수 있는 활용모델, 특히 증거법적 판단절차를 통해 사이비 과학(junk science)의 유입을 차단할 수 있는 판단기준의 설정이 핵심적 과제임을 알 수 있다. 또한 수사 및 형사공판실무 과학적 증거가 활용되는 사례의 대부분에서 확인할 수 있듯이, 과학적 증거를 활용하기 위한 인적, 물적 인프라는 사실 상, 수사기관에 집중, 주도되고 있다. 따라서 과학적 증거에 대한 의존도가 높아질수록 상대적으로 피의자, 피고인의 방어권은 위축될 수 있다는 문제점도 함께 고려되어야 할 요소라 하겠다. 결국, 적정한 과학적 증거에 대한 활용모델 내지 증거법적 가치판단의 기준은 피의자, 피고인의 접근가능성이 충분히 고려될 수 있는 기반의 구축여부에 대한 고려와 함께 사이비과학의 유입을 적절히 제어하여 오판원인을 최소화할 수 있는 형태가 되어야 할 것이다. 이러한 문제와 관련하여 이하에서는, 과학적 증거 일반에 내재된 신뢰성 판단문제를 증거법적 판단과정을 통해 어떻게 여과할 수 있는가 라는 쟁점을 중심으로 논의를 진행하되, 피의자, 피고인의 방어권을 보장하기 위한 과학적 증거에의 접근가능성을 고려하여 한국의 수사 및 공판실무에 적합한 증거법적 가치판단기준을 제시해보고자 한다.

형사소송에서 과학적 증거의 허용범위

김준성(Kim, Jun Sung) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2013 江原法學 Vol.40 No.-

오늘날 과학적 채증의 발달에 의하여 과학적 증거는 실체진실발견에 큰 도움이 되고 있다. 하지만 반면 과학적 증거가 증거능력을 인정받기만 하면 다른 증거들보다도 법관의 증명력 판단에 우월한 증거가치를 가지게 된다. 이러한 과학적 증거가 형사재판에서 오용될 경우에는 오히려 실체진실주의에 반하게 되는 결과를 가져올 수도 있다. 물론 형사재판에서 법관은 합리적으로 판단하여 엄격한 증명으로서 과학적 증거의 증거능력을 부여하고 있다. 실제 형사실무에서 과학적 증거의 이용은 계속 증대되고 있지만, 최근까지도 대법원 판례의 입장은 과학적 증거방법에 의하여 제출되는 과학적 증거가 일정한 요건을 갖추면 증거로서 허용된다고 언급할 뿐 과학적 증거의 구체적인 허용범위에 대한 내용은 제시되지 않고 있다. 그리고 현행 형사소송법의 규정에도 과학적 증거의 허용여부에 관한 명시적인 규정이 없다. 이와 같은 문제점에 입각하여 본 연구에서는 과학적 증거가 형사실무에서 증거능력으로 허용되기 위한 합리적인 기준을 제시하고자 모색하였다. 이를 위하여 본 연구는 과학적 증거의 허용성과 신뢰성의 판단기준에 대한 기존의 논의를 재검토한 후, 판례의 입장을 분석하였다. 그 결과 과학적 증거가 형사실무에서 증거능력으로 허용되는 범위는 다소 엄격한 기준이 적용되는 것이 타당하다고 생각된다. 즉 과학적 증거는 추론의 방법이 과학적으로 정당하여야 하고, 그에 따라 증거능력을 인정받아야 하며, 그리고 법관의 증명력 판단에 합리적 의심을 허용하지 않아야 될 것이다. 이러한 과학적 증거의 허용범위는 형사소송에서 피고인에게 상대적으로 유리한 증거로 활용될 수 있어야 하고, 한편으로는 피고인에게 불리한 증거라면 정황증거로서 증거능력판단의 기준으로도 활용될 수 있어야 할 것이다. 아울러 이와 같은 측면에서 과학적 증거의 허용범위를 현행 형사소송법에 입법화하는 방안도 필요하다고 생각된다. Today, with the development of scientific evidence-gathering techniques, scientific evidence has become helpful in discovering substantive truth. In spite of it’s own advantages, however, there are some problems in that if only we might admit admissibility of evidence in scientific evidence, it could get superior value as evidence to other evidence or to the judgement of a judge’s evidentiary proof. When this scientific evidence is abused or misused, it could result in the opposite conclusion against substantive truth. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, of course, judges, by their own reasonable judgement, could judge whether scientific evidence might have the admissibility of evidence as firm evidence. In a practical criminal case, the use of scientific evidence has been on the rise, but the Supreme Court has not suggested concrete permitted limit in scientific evidence, and only have said that it can be permitted as evidence only when a certain kind of condition is added. And there are no written provision about the permission of scientific evidence in our current the Criminal Procedure Code. Considering these problems, in this study I tried to suggest a reasonable standard of how scientific evidence might be permitted in a practical criminal case. To do that, I reviewed the existing discussion which is about the allowableness and reliability of scientific evidence. And then I analyzed the precedent. As a result of this study, I concluded that, in a practical criminal case, permitted limit or range in scientific evidence needs to be accepted by a strict or firm standard. In other words, scientific evidence could, in it’s way of reasoning, be justified, and could, by it’s reasonable justification, be admitted as admissibility of evidence, and could not be leave a reasonable doubt in judges making their decisions. And permitted limit or range in scientific evidence might be used as an advantage to the accused, but if it is not advantageous to the accused it might be used as the standard of whether it could be evidence or not, as circumstantial evidence. In addition, from this point of view I would say that permitted limit or range in scientific evidence should be legislated in the current Criminal Procedure Code.

Scientific Evidence Rule under the SPS Agreement

Lee, Eun Sup;Zhu, Zhu 법무부 2010 통상법률 Vol.- No.92

In determining legitimacy of Members' domestic SPS measures, particularly, in cases where the protection levels chosen by Members are higher than that of international standards, scientific evidence has been employed as an essential yardstick by the dispute settlement body. Generally, sufficient scientific evidences should include conducting of proper risk assessments that evaluate the degree of risks related to SPS measures and the rational or objective relationship between the risk assessment and the measure at issue. The judicial interpretation of the term of "scientific evidence" under the SPS Agreement has generally been attempted to be made liberally. The Appellate Body reviewed that "sufficient scientific evidence" is not a static or determined set of knowledge, but rather an integrated consideration of proportionality between Members' SPS measures and the level of protection they prefer to adopt, as well as those non-scientific factors including economic situations and social values. However, those attempts of the Appellate Body directing to a liberal interpretation ended up with a fairly narrow and strict application in real disputes by adding other stringent requirements that is barely easy to meet. The current interpretation and application of the term "sufficient scientific evidence" has arguably been criticized to be too severe by the free-trade supporters, and at the same time, too obscure by the health-related environmental protectionisms. To make interpretation of the term "sufficient scientific evidence" truly liberal, providing Members with more deference on adopting their SPS measures, the Appellate Body shall clarify a point of equilibrium where it can properly realize the dual objectives of promotion of liberalized trade and the improvement of the public health of its Members at the same time, and then, to establish a set of detailed standards that would be helpful to achieve such objectives. WTO 회원국의 국내 SPS조치의 합법성을 판결함에 있어, 특히, 회원국이 채택한 보호 수준이 국제표준에서 규정하고 있는 수준보다 높은 경우, 과학적 증거는 WTO 분쟁해결기구에 있어 하나의 중요한 판단 기준이 된다. 일반적으로, 충분한 과학적 증거는 SPS조치와 관련된 위험의 정도를 평가하고 위험평가와 당해 조치 사이의 합리적이거나 객관적인 관계를 평가하는 적절한 위험평가를 포함해야 한다. SPS 협정하에서 "과학적 증거" 라는 용어의 사법적 해석은 일반적으로 유연성 있게 해석되어져왔다. 항소기구는 "충분한 과학적 증거"는 고정된 지식이라기 보다, 회원국들의 SPS조치와 회원국들이 원하는 보호수준 그리고 경제적 상황과 사회적 가치를 포함하는 비-과학적 요소들간의 균형을 총체적으로 고려하는 것이라고 주장을 하였다. 그러나 항소기구의 유연한 해석으로의 시도는 분쟁에서 쉽게 충족시킬 수 없는 다른 엄격한 요건을 더함으로써 상당히 좁고 엄격한 적용을 가져왔다. "충분한 과학증거"에 대한 현재의 해석과 적용은 자유무역 지지자들에게는 너무 엄격하다는 비판을, 동시에 건강과 관련된 환경보호주의자에게는 아주 모호하다는 비판을 받고 있다. "충분한 과학적 증거"를 진정한 유연성으로 해석하기 위해, 그리고 SPS 조치를 채택함에 있어 회원국을 더욱 존중하기 위해, 항소기구는 자유무역의 촉진과 회원국이 공중 건강의 개선이라는 두 가지 목적을 적절히 실현하여야 하는 균형점을 명확히 하여야 하고, 그렇게 한 후에 항소기구는 필요한 자세한 표준을 제정하여야 한다.

형사절차상 과학증거 활용과 관련한 시각의 전환

姜于乂(Wu Ye Kang) 중앙법학회 2012 中央法學 Vol.14 No.1

Scientific evidence is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, scientific evidence works as a good instrument to clarify the truth in the criminal justice system but on the other hand could cause bad results that is not expected. A judge that usually has no scientific background may face great difficulties in dealing with complex area of expertise. Most of all, a court should consider whether a particular science submitted to a criminal process has minimal scientific validity and also take into consideration how the science prove any fact relevant. This judicial consideration of science does not correspond to what is done by scientists. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., decided by the United States Supreme Court shifts the standards of assessing scientific evidence. What is interesting is that the controversy of legal standard of assessment of scientific evidence become more seriously since after the Daubert decision. The most important reason is because the Daubert case contain contradictive factors in its reasoning. The scientific validity can not stand the sharpened attack from criticisms. There is no clear evidence that the legal standard about admissibility and probative force of scientific evidence has come to be settled. The view that scientific evidence is the best way to clarify the truth in criminal process was criticized in two ways. First, participants of criminal process usually do not have qualified scientists who can properly assess science in court. Second, the argument that trash science is widespread in criminal justice system come to get persuasive powers. The criticisms does not come to end for low-quality science but get to the perspective of paradigm shift for scientific evidence. Nonetheless, until now, the belief that science could rescue bad practice and system of criminal justice makes the problems more complex. For the eyes of some Korean scholars, to achieve justice more effectively in criminal justice system, science should be more often used to prove facts in courts. Also, the legal rule that reliability of evidence should rely on scientific validity express the hope for science. What is more necessary now is understanding pros and cons of science, to open up the door more widely to truth in a court. We should reassess every single scientific method and theory in forensic science area. If any error of a science cannot be totally eradicated, the reasonable reformation of criminal process must be the next option.

과학증거의 자유심증주의 제한에 대한 비판적 고찰

강우예(Kang, Wu-Ye) 한국형사법학회 2013 형사법연구 Vol.25 No.1

Recently, scientific evidence has been a substantial challenge on korean criminal justice system. Korean supreme court has produced some decisions in which a judge's discretion can be restrained by some sorts of scientific evidence, such as DNA evidence, blood type analysis evidence, etc. Korean supreme court seems to open up a new era of reliability of scientific evidence which just has been considered in relation with admissibility of evidence. Most of all, access to reality is not substituted by scientific and statistical certainty. Truth in criminal justice system is the truth that exist in distribution of right, limit of perspective and system, and often many errors. Although scientific achievement can partly help cure legal system, its exaggeration must lead to another unreasonable outcome. Particularly, even a DNA evidence suffers from many error and misunderstanding. For example, many decision-makers in court process misunderstands a source probability of DNA analysis as a matching rate of a DNA sample with that of defendant. Also, sometimes, judges and jurors accept a shown probability of DNA as a probability of a defendant's guilt. Unlike those in common bias, probabilities regarding DNA analysis results from subjective considerations of relevant facts. Science in nature is also partly subjective and uncertain in nature. Also, weight of an individual evidence is not simply determined by its scientific method but also by a constructive argument of entire picture of past events. Any evidence may be a mere part of a narrative about facts argued. That is, fact-finding process of criminal process is largely different from that of science. Therefore, simple application of probabilistic certainty contained in a scientific evidence to fact-finding process in a criminal process is a serious error. In addition, proof beyond reasonable doubt tells us that scientific evidence by itself cannot be used to prove a defendant guilt but may be useful to disprove it. Because, with scientific evidence that is uncertain in nature and different from fact in law as a matter of its purpose, guilt-proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be achieved.

國際通商規範의 發展에 있어서 科學의 役割과 限界

崔昇煥(Seung Hwan Choi) 대한국제법학회 2004 國際法學會論叢 Vol.49 No.1

이 글은 국제통상규범의 발전에 있어 ‘과학’의 역할과 한계를 WTO 패널과 상소기구의 관련 보고서를 중심으로 검토한 것이다. ‘과학적’이라는 용어가 명시적으로 사용된 WTO 협정에는 ‘SPS 협정’, ‘TBT 협정’, ‘분쟁해결양해’(DSU)가 있다. 특히 ‘SPS 협정’은 회원국의 위생 및 검역조치가 ‘과학적 원칙’과 ‘과학적 증거’ 및 ‘위해성평가’에 입각하도록 규정하고 있다. ‘SPS 협정’상의 ‘과학적 증거주의’ 또는 ‘과학적 증거요건’은 식품안전이나 동ㆍ식물검역 및 환경을 보호하기 위해 제정된 국내규제조치를 과학적 원칙 및 증거에 입각하도록 하는 것을 말한다. ‘과학적 증거주의’는 위생 및 검역규제의 남용을 방지하고 자유무역이익과 환경보호이익간에 균형을 적절히 유지함으로써, 자유무역이익과 환경보호이익을 모두 실현하기 위한 ‘합리적인’ 법원칙으로서 기능한다. 과학적 증거가 결여된 위생 및 검역조치는 위장된 통상제한이나 불필요한 무역장벽으로서 WTO 협정상 정당화될 수 없는 ‘비합리적’이고 ‘불법적’인 규제조치로 판정받게 된다. 또한 ‘과학적 증거주의’는 위해성에 대한 합리적이고 민주적인 통제를 가능하게 하고, 위해성에 대한 적정보호수준의 정도와 범위를 결정하게 하며, 자의적 통상제한과 위장된 통상제한 및 국내산업보호를 금지함으로써 자유무역질서를 확립하는 효과적인 수단으로 기능한다. 그러나 과학은 본질적으로 상대적이며 불확실하다. 특정제품 및 물질의 위해성에 대한 과학적 평가가 국가 및 과학자들간에 상이할 경우 분쟁해결을 위한 과학의 역할은 좁아진다. ‘과학적 증거주의’는 국민건강과 생태계에 영향을 미치는 위해성에 대한 민주적 통제권한을 제한할 수 있고, 위생 및 검역규제에 대해 ‘충분한 과학적 증거’를 요구하는 현행 ‘SPS 협정’은 과학기술이 낙후된 개도국에게 불공평한 부담을 줄 수 있으며, 과학적 불확실성이 존재하는 경우 사전주의적 예방조치를 적절히 발동하는 것을 방해함으로써 회복할 수 없는 환경재앙을 초래할 가능성이 있다. ‘과학적 증거주의’의 이와 같은 한계를 극복하기 위해서는 위해성평가에 관한 소수과학자의 견해를 존중하고, ‘SPS 협정’ 제5.7조를 보다 유연하게 해석하거나 국제법상의 사전주의원칙을 ‘1994년 GATT’ 제20조와 ‘SPS 협정’ 등에 구체적으로 도입할 필요가 있다. 특히 인간의 생명이나 건강에 관련된 과학적 증거에 관한 소수의견을 존중하는 것은 무역가치보다 생명가치를 우선하는 것으로, 실천이성의 입장에서 볼 때, 생명가치보다 무역가치를 우선시하는 자유무역주의 보다 정당하다고 하겠다. The World Trade Organization ("WTO") Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("SPS Agreement") requires that members either adopt harmonized international standards or, if they choose to maintain stricter domestic regulation, base these on scientific principles, scientific evidence, and risk assessment. Under the scientific evidence requirement, certain regulations to protect health, safety, or the environment, must be based on scientific evidence. In the context of Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, the evidence to be considered should be evidence gathered through scientific methods, excluding not only insufficiently substantiated information, but also such things as a non-demonstrated hypothesis. Thus, the scientific evidence requirement lies at the core of the trade disciplines established in the SPS Agreement, and has played an important role in establishing the free trade order by prohibiting disguised restrictions to trade. Science is, however, in essense uncertain, inconclusive, incomplete and highly tentative. It is hardly objetive and universal. The SPS Agreement invokes science but provides little guidance as to its meaning and application. Science is a much controversial notion in contemporary thinking, and promises little hope as an objective and neutral standards to resolve trade disputes among nations, with complex and competing scientific views. The scientific evidence requirement conflicts with regulatorary sovereignty in all cases of serious scientific uncertainty, and constrains democratic control for health, safety and the environment. Many developing countries are lack of financial and technical capacity to manage the risk assessment for food safety, and may not be able to provide the sufficient scientific basis for regulations. Where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, members may take provisional measures prior to a scientific risk assessment under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. Article 5.7 reflects the precautionary principle. Unlike the precautionary principle of international law, members invoking Article 5.7 must seek to obtain the additional information and review the measure within a reasonable period of time, according to the second sentence of Article 5.7. As in the Japan-Agricultural Products, it is not easy to meet these addtional requirements under Article 5.7. In order to overcome the limits of science, Article 5.7 should be interpreted more flexibly against the outbreak of irrevocable catastrophe, and the precautionary principle of international law should be adopted in Article 20 of the GATT 1994 or the SPS Agreement. Minority scientific opinion should be respected in a scientific risk assessment. A WTO panel should consider all relevant scientific evidences available to it, and respect the minority scientific opinion on risk assessment. So long as human health and life are concerned, the value of life based on the precautionary principle should have priority over the value of free trade.

과학적 증거의 판단기준과 적용과정에 대한 이해 - 최근 논란이 된 사례들을 중심으로 -

김면기 한국형사정책학회 2018 刑事政策 Vol.30 No.3

As the importance of scientific evidence has been increasing in the criminal trial, the attention from academics and legal practitioners in scientific evidence has been soared. Many researches have been conducted since the 2000s, and the Supreme Court of South Korea has also made important decisions concerning the standards of examination and evaluation for scientific evidence. But there are still many remaining issues that need to be addressed. In particular, the efforts of criminal justice practitioners to clearly grasp and consistently apply the standards set by the Supreme Court should be strengthened. Ambiguous understanding and application of the standards do not differs from the absence of standards. Moreover, in criminal trials, it is true that, for the purpose of administering justice, the unscientific aspects of scientific evidence could be easily neglected. In order to help criminal justice officials broaden the understanding of scientific evidence, this article explains the nature of 'science', the characteristics of 'scientific evidence', 'the standards of examination and evaluation for scientific evidence', and how it should be applied. Including discussions in the philosophy of science, the relevant articles of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act and the U.S. Supreme Court precedents, and recent controversial cases have been discussed. It's easier said than done. This is also shown in the discussion of the recent controversial cases. Continued academic research on scientific evidence is highly required. 형사재판에서 과학적 증거의 중요성이 높아지면서, 과학적 증거에 대한 학계와 실무계의 관심이 높아져가고 있다. 2000년대 이후 활발한 연구가 진행되고 있으며, 대법원도 과학적 증거의 심사·평가와 관련된 중요한 판결들을 선고한 바 있다. 그러나 여전히 과학적 증거와 관련되어 해결되어야 할 부분들이 많이 남아있다. 그 중에서도 형사사법 분야에 종사하는 실무자들이 대법원이 제시한 기준들을 명확히 이해하고 일관되게 적용하려는 노력이 강화되어야 한다. 기준에 대한 불명확한 이해와 적용은 결국 기준의 부재와 다름이 없기 때문이다. 형사재판에서는, 정의 실현이라는 숭고한 명제 앞에서, 과학적 증거의 ‘비과학적 요소’들은 쉽게 간과되거나 별 것 아닌 것으로 치부될 가능성이 높기 때문에 더욱 그러하다. 본 논문에서는 ‘과학’의 본질, ‘과학적 증거’의 특성과 함께, 과학적 증거의 ‘판단 기준’이 과연 무엇이고, 그것은 어떻게 적용되는지 등에 대해서 살펴보았다. 이를 위해 과학철학에서의 논의와 더불어 우리나라 형사소송법의 구조, 미국의 연방대법원 판례들에 대해 검토하였고, 최근 논란이 된 사례들을 통하여 기준의 적용과정에 대해서도 설명하였다. 이러한 논의가 우리 과학수사 실무에 줄 수 있는 시사점에 대해서도 생각해 보았다. 원칙을 세우기는 쉽지만, 그것을 실천하기는 어렵다. 앞서 살펴 본 우리나라의 사례들도 이러한 점을 시사한다. 과학적 증거에 대한 학계의 지속적인 관심과 연구가 요구되는 이유다.

‘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.

법과학 증거의 오류 가능성에 대한 이해

김면기,유승진 충북대학교 법학연구소 2020 과학기술과 법 Vol.11 No.1

As the paradigm of criminal investigation is changing, physical evidence, especially forensic evidence, is increasingly used in crime investigation. Due to the development of advanced science and technology, such as DNA, forensic evidence is recognized as highly objective, accurate and reliable evidence. As a result, investigative agencies are more focusing on collecting scientific evidence, instead of collecting testimonial evidence. However, not all forensic science evidence has a high degree of reliability. Unlike DNA evidence, some forensic evidence have a weak scientific foundation. This paper examines the development process of pattern evidence, such as bullet analysis, and also discusses why some scientific evidences are inadequate and why these problems are rarely solved. Since some forensic evidence often relies on subjective interpretation rather than objective and quantitative experiments, it is necessary to establish a scientific foundation and improve it. If sufficient foundation of forensic science is not made, the defendant can face a wrongful conviction. So far, not many had been interested in wrongful conviction. And most of retrial cases that gain public interest are political cases, and it had been difficult to find equal effort for general criminal cases. Fortunately, in recent years, interest for general criminal case has been increasing. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive discussion on the causes of wrongful conviction. Most of them only focus on false confession, and forensic science is rarely considered as a contributing cause of wrongful conviction. However, flawed forensic science evidence is one of the main causes of wrongful conviction. Forensic evidence sometimes may be unreliable evidence that does not meet basic reliability. Given the general trust in forensic evidence, errors in forensic evidence have fatal consequences. Therefore, efforts to prevent errors in forensic science evidence need to be strengthened.

형사절차상 사회과학적 증거의 증명력과 증거능력에 대한 연구 - 미국의 논의에 대한 분석을 중심으로 -

강우예 ( Kang Wu Ye ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2017 법학논총 Vol.34 No.1

비교적 낮은 과학적 엄밀성을 지닌 사회과학적 증거라고 하더라도 형사절차에서 유용하게 사용될 수 있다. 법정에서는 단지 과학계에서 승인된 고도의 정확도를 자랑하는 과학만이 사용되어야 하는 것은 아니다. 우선, 사회과학적 증거의 증거능력을 평가하는 데에는 미국 연방대법원의 도버트 기준이 활용될 수 있다. 사회과학적 연구 또한 경성과학에서 활용하는 방법론을 활용하는 경우들이 있으므로 검증가능성, 출판 및 동료심사, 오류율, 일반적 승인 같은 요소들을 고려하여 해당 증거가 형사절차의 특정한 국면에 현출되는 것이 적절할지를 판단하는 것이 필요하다. 사회과학적 증거의 방법론에 대한 도버트 식의 검토가 불가능하거나 적절치 않은 경우 관련성 기준을 고려하는 대안을 모색할 필요가 있다. 관련성 기준은 일면 도버트 기준에 비하여 해당 전문지식의 유효성과 신뢰성을 간접적으로 평가하는 성질을 지녔다. 사회과학적 증거의 타당성과 유효성에 대한 직접적인 판단이 유보된 상태로 남게 되면, 사회과학적 증거의 증거능력과 증명력 판단은 절차의 역동성하에 놓이게 된다. 이 경우, 절차참가자들의 역할을 종합하여 해당 사회과학적 증거의 증명력(probative value)이 불공정한 효과(unfair prejudice)를 넘어섰는지 여부에 따라 증거능력이 판단할 필요가 있다. 또한, 가정폭력피해자인 피고인의 방어권을 충분히 보장하기 위하여 또는 강간피해자 처한 심리적·사회맥락적 정황에 대한 분명한 이해를 위하여 피학대여성증후군이나 강간외상증후군과 같은 사회과학적 증거를 현출시킬 수 있어야 한다. Even social scientific evidence that hold low scientific value can be helpful to prove the fact in issue in the criminal process. It is not true that only science with high accuracy can be used in a court. Most of all, the Daubert-standards posited by the United States Supreme Court can be applied to a social scientific evidence to determine its admissibility. Some social sciences rely on the methodology commonly held in hard science. Therefore, the Daubert`s factors, such as testability, publication and peer review, error rate, general acceptance, should be taken into consideration to decide whether it is proper to admit a particular social scientific evidence in a court. It is necessary to consider the relevancy standard when the Daubert standards cannot be applied to a methodology of a scientific evidence in issue. In contrast to Daubert standrads, the relevancy standards indirectly assess validity of methodological aspects of a social scientific evidence. When a review of validity of a scientific evidence is put aside, the consideration of a scientific evidence will be placed on dynamics of a process. In this case, after considering all participants` opinions in the process, the admissibility of the social scientific evidence can be determined with striking balance between probative value and unfair prejudice. In this sense, some clinical evidences, such as battered women syndrome and rape trauma syndrome, can be admitted to sufficiently support a female defendant`s right and to more clearly understand socio-psychological context of a rape victim.