범죄피해아동의 진술능력을 고려한 효과적인 조사기법에 관한 연구

박종선 경희대학교 법학연구소 2010 경희법학 Vol.45 No.3

In general, children are in the process of growing into a mature stage, they are not good at understanding and coping with certain circumstances. The testimony given by these dependent and immature children is mostly based on their accurate memory. However, it is not easy to have these children who are still lack of expressing themselves in language give testimony. The main reason why child testimony has been controversial in terms of reliability is that their memory is inaccurate or inconsistent. This kind of problem may occur because they are children. However, it is sometimes caused by an inappropriate crime investigation method. In addition, children can give wrong testimony because of huge stress from the investigation. Moreover, they are sometimes unable to state some facts until they are specifically asked. Even if distorted memory or linguistic egocentrism is found in child testimony, crime investigation would focus on child ability for giving accurate testimony with good understanding of an investigator’s questions in the past. Recently, however, the investigation method and procedure in consideration of the characteristic of children have become more important than children’s ability for giving testimony in child testimony. Therefore, it is essential for an investigator to try to understand children’s attitude and behavior during investigation. Furthermore, he/she is required to study child psychology and effective investigation methods in advance to get accurate testimony from children. This kind of investigation method and procedure could be a key to reveal the truth of the crime. Therefore, a special investigation procedure should be established when a child joins the crime investigation. After all, the government is obligated to guarantee that child crime victims would get a prompt and appropriate decision and take all possible actions to restore their rights from the crime.

경찰관 법정증언의 실태와 개선방안

이기수 ( Ki Soo Lee ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논총 Vol.36 No.1

Police officers`` testimony in court is expected to increase drastically due to enforcement of trial-oriented court proceeding, expanded implementation of court proceedings with laymen`s participation, introduction of investigators`` testimony system, etc. Under such circumstances, status of court testimony by police officers could be identified through a questionnaire survey conducted with police officers in the national police agency, where several problems were exposed as well. First, police officers did not have sufficient experience in the court testimony, and task burdens by police were expected to increase with an increase in the court testimony. Also lack of systematic instruction on the court testimony was also revealed as a problem, while no unified measures were shown to be available on recollection of memories related to the incident for a testimony, As improvement measures to resolve these problems, First, specialized instructions in relation to the court testimony were suggested to be implemented. It was emphasized that broad and systematic instructions should be directed to basic matters such as preparation for the court testimony, anticipated questions, required testimonial techniques, methods of memory recollection, legal knowledge such as perjury, etc. For instruction method, it was pointed out not be limited to one-time training but needs to be on a constant and regular basis taking into account such things as personnel transfer, recruitment of new officers, changes in regulations, etc. Secondly, needs for systematically managing police officers`` court testimony were discussed, with a statement that designation of a devoted department, provision of legal services through operation of specialized counselors, etc. were needed. Thirdly, it was suggested that police officers`` task loads were to be reduced through prior task discussions with the court and the prosecutors`` office having direct relations with police officers`` court testimony and that matters required for smooth testimony should be adjusted.

사법경찰관의 조사자증언과 수사상 진술의 증거활용

한연규(Han Yon Kyu) 대검찰청 2018 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.60

조사자증언제도의 도입, 효과 등에 대해서는 다양한 의견이 존재하나, 경찰 수사상 이루어진 피의자의 진술을 증거활용할 수 있게 해준다는 점에서 조사자증언제도의 도입에 본질적 의미가 있다. 실무적으로는 조사자증언의 활용도가 매우 떨어지는데 그 이유로는 ➀ 특신성 기준이 명확하지 않아 예측하기 어렵고, 증명력 문제를 혼합하여 판단하는 경우가 많아 증거능력을 인정받기가 매우 까다로운 점 ➁ 경찰 피의자신문 조서의 증거능력을 인정하지 않는 법제를 근거로 법원에서 조사자증언을 특히 엄격히 해석할 뿐 아니라 증거신청조차 잘 받아주지 않는 실무상 관행 ➂ 경찰 조사과정에서 피의자 진술의 임의성을 담보할만한 제도적 장치의 부재 등을 들 수 있다. 특히, 증거능력과 증명력을 혼합시켜 특신성을 판단할 경우 조사자증언이 증거능력으로서 정당한 평가를 받지 못하는 문제가 발생한다. 이는 조사자증언의 위축과 직결된다. 법정에 현출시킬 수 있는 증거능력 판단의 기준을 모호하게 가져갈 수 있기 때문에 증거를 제출하는 자부터 판단하는 자에 이르기까지 증거로 사용할 수 있을지 여부에 대해 예측하기 어려운 상황을 만들 뿐 아니라 그런 증거가 나오는 상황을 꺼리게 만드는 문제점이 있다. 조사자증언제도의 활성을 위해서는 법원에서는 특신성을 증거능력의 요건으로 이해하여 진술의 임의성과 ‘직접 관련’되거나 임의성을 ‘추단’할 수 있는 기준으로 특신성을 판단하여야 한다. 독일, 프랑스, 미국, 영국, 일본 등 외국 주요 국가들은 방식, 요건 등에 차이가 있었으나 모두 수사절차상 진술을 증거로 활용하고 있는 점을 고려할 필요가 있다. 장기적으로는 조사자증언의 문제가 아닌 조서 외 증거현출 방법으로서 피의자의 인정 진술(수사 당시 조서 기재내용과 같이 진술한 사실을 인정하는 진술) 및 영상녹화물의 증거능력을 인정할 필요가 있다. 외국 주요 국가들처럼 수사상 진술을 확보하고 유지할 수 있는 제도적 장치들이 충분히 마련되는 경우에는 증거의 영역에서 조사자증언이나 인정진술, 영상녹화물 등이 검찰 작성이든, 경찰 작성이든 조서를 완전히 대체할 수 있는 수단으로서 기능할 수도 있다고 생각한다. There is a fundamental meaning in the introduction of the police officer’s testimony in court, because it allows us to use a statement of a suspect on the police investigation as evidence, although there are diverse opinions on the issue of application and effect of police officer’s testimony in court. In practice, police officer’s testimony in court is less in use by the following reasons: ➀ It’s not easy to predict because the special credibility as an admissibility aren’t clear. Furthermore, we often judge by confusing admissibility and reliability of evidence, hence it is very difficult to be recognized for admissibility of evidence. ➁ On the basis of an unauthorized act on admissibility of evidence of a police protocol of examination of a suspect, there has been a practical custom in which the court not only interprets strictly police officer’s testimony, but does not even accept an application for evidence in court. ➂ During the police investigation, it can’t be said that there are institutionalizing means to guarantee the voluntariness of the suspect’s confession. in particular, judging the special credibility as an admissibility by mixing admissibility with reliability results in problems where the police officer’s testimony is not evaluated properly as evidence. This is directly related to the contraction of the police officer’s testimony. A criterion of judgment for admissibility of evidence to be presented in court can be ambiguous and this doesn’t only makes those who presents evidence reluctant to encounter a problem, creating a situation that is difficult to predict whether being used as evidence but also makes those who judges it avoiding situations where such evidence is presented. For the activation of the police officer’s testimony in court, the judge should receive the special credibility as an admissibility with the element for the admissibility of evidence, consequently gauge whether it is ‘directly related’ or ‘presumptive’ in the voluntariness of the statement. We need to consider that major foreign countries such as Germany, France, the United States, Britain and Japan use statements in the investigative stage as evidence, although there were some differences in methods and requirements. From a long-term point of view, the suspect’s consistent statements and the video recording should be recognized as the admissibility of evidence. If there are enough institutionalizing devices to secure and maintain statements in investigative stage like major foreign countries, in the realm of evidence, police officer’s testimony, consistent statements, video recordings, could be served as a way to completely replace the protocol whether written by the prosecutor or by the police.

NICHD 아동 수사면담 프로토콜과 지속적인 면담자 훈련의 필요성에 대한 고찰

곽금주,이승진 한국심리학회 2014 한국심리학회지 일반 Vol.33 No.1

An investigative interview of children has an imperative and critical responsibility in the context of children's testimony and it often determines how the rest of the investigation proceeds in the legal system. Consequently, concrete structures and systematic contents are required for appropriate as well as scientific investigative interview of children. Yet, unfortunately, there have been only a few articles published regarding training procedures that have methodical support and confirmed effectiveness for investigative interviewers of children in Korea. Thus, this paper offered to provide comprehensive information of a series of stages involved in training investigative interviewers of children which included a stage of building positive environment, a learning stage, a stage for open-discussion, and a stage for wrapping up. In addition, the structures of an individual and group interview feedback and the criterions for an ideal interview feedback were introduced. Ultimately, the goals of this paper were to emphasize the necessity of effective and systematized training procedures based on the results of scientific researches examining the most effective training methods for investigative interviewers for them to facilitate interviews of high standard and to recognize the importance of a continuous training throughout their professional careers as investigative interviewers. It was also discussed that everyone on the team including administrators and managers who work in the related fields needs to perceive the importance of continuous effective training for investigative interviewers of children to attain the most reliable testimony. 아동 전담 수사면담은 아동 진술의 신뢰성 확보와 범죄 사건의 올바른 판결에 매우 중요한 역할을 담당한다. 아동 진술이 성폭력, 신체 학대 등 가혹한 범죄 사건의 해결에 실증적 증거로 채택되는 사례가 증가하면서 국외에서는 바람직한 수사면담 시행을 위한 면담 훈련의 필요성과 그 중요성에 관심이 주목되고 있다. 그러나 국내에서는 아직까지 아동 수사면담을 담당하는 전문가들을 위한 면담 훈련의 구체적인 정보와 면담 훈련이 아동 진술의 정확성에 미치는 영향에 대한 학술 연구 및 현장 자료 조사들이 매우 미흡한 실정이다. 따라서 본 논문은 국제적으로 널리 알려져 있는 NICHD 아동 수사면담 프로토콜의 구성 및 효과성, NICHD 프로토콜에 의한 수사면담 훈련의 중요성과 면담 훈련의 구체적 절차와 구성에 대해 고찰해 보고자 하였다. 마지막으로 아동 전담 수사면담자 훈련을 위한 제도적 정비의 필요성을 제언하고자 하였다. 궁극적으로 본 논문은 아동 전담 수사면담자의 바람직한 역할에 대한 심층적 이해와 학문적 지식이 매우 부족한 국내 현실을 고려하여 관련 학술 연구자 및 실무자들에게 지속적이고 효과적인 아동 전담 수사면담자 훈련의 필요성에 대한 의견을 피력하고, 아동 수사면담의 질적 향상에 필요한 학문적 정보를 제공하는데 그 의의를 두었다.

조사자증언제도에 대한 비판적 소고(小考)

이용식 ( Yong Sik Lee ) 한국형사정책학회 2012 刑事政策 Vol.24 No.3

It has been 5 years since Korean Criminal Procedure Code amended extensively. Through this 2007 amendment, the investigator`s testimony in court could admissible as an evidence by Art. 316, which is related to the hearsay statements. The trial-oriented court proceeding was emphasized in the 2007 amendment and this investigator`s testimony code was also the part of it. If the scholars want to treat investigator`s testimony in court as a part of the trial-oriented court proceeding, however, it should be on the premise that the code about the protocol of suspect examination written by police officer or prosecutor(Art. 312) has to be revised. Korean criminal procedure code still grants the document form of police officer or prosecutor as an evidence, and accepts the statement form of them as an evidence at the same time. This brings the crucial structural contradiction to the law construction and even to the law enforcement. As long as this situation maintains, it can be possibile that illegal investigation would be brought into being and the defendant`s right to defend himself would be infringed. Now, it is the right time to solve this ironical issue with the fundamental decision. If the report of suspect examination written by prosecutor could be inadmissible, the investigator`s testimony in court would be able to carry out its original purpose.

국민참여재판 법정증언에 대비한 조사경찰관 역할의 변화 방향

최응렬(Choi Eung Ryul),임유석(Lim You Seok) 한국공안행정학회 2009 한국공안행정학회보 Vol.18 No.3

2008년 1월 1일부터 시행된 국민의 형사재판참여제도는 우리나라 사법역사상 중대한 전기를 맞는 획기적인 제도라고 할 수 있겠다. 지금까지 대부분의 형사재판은 직업 법관에 의한 조서재판에 집중하여 실체적인 진실을 발견하기 위한 검사와 피고인의 공방을 살펴볼 수가 없었다. 하지만 국민참여재판제도는 형사재판에 국민이 직접 배심원 자격으로 참여하여 피고인에 대한 사실심리와 양형심리에 대해 진지하게 평의하고, 그 결과에 대한 의견을 직업 법관들에게 개진함으로써 법관들이 배심원들의 평결을 참고한 판결을 선고하는 새로운 형태의 형사재판이다. 국민참여재판은 공판중심주의와 직접심리주의를 실현시키며, 이는 피고인과 검사가 대등한 주체로 인정할 수 있게 하고, 법정 안에서 현출된 증거만을 가지고 구두변론에 의해 법관과 배심원들이 유죄의 심증을 형성해 나가는 것이다. 그러므로 사건의 발생시점으로부터 가장 맞닿아 있는 조사경찰관의 증언은 법정에서 그 어떤 증거보다 농도 짙은 유죄의 심증형성에 기여할 수 있을 것이다. 또한 공판중심주의 확립을 위해서도 매우 중요하다고 할 수 있으며, 조사경찰관이 위증죄의 부담을 안고 피의자를 신문한 조서에 대해 증언을 하여 배심원들의 심증형성에 결정적인 역할을 하게 될 것이다. 이에 대비해 조사경찰관들은 기존의 수사관행과는 다른 국민참여재판에서의 재판주체와 공판구조의 변화를 정확하게 인식하여 수사주체와 수사방식에 변화를 주어야 할 것이다. 따라서 배심원들의 심증형성을 위해 가장 먼저 조사경찰관 증언에 대한 신뢰성을 확보해야 하고, 배심원의 이해력을 고려한 피의자신문조서를 증언해야 하며, 공판준비절차에서부터 증인에 대한 적격성을 먼저 검토해야 한다. 그리고 조사경찰관은 적법절차에 의한 피의 자신문조서를 작성하고, 피고인의 진술번복에 대한 명백한 탄핵증거를 제시해야 하며, 부적법한 자백과 조서위주의 수사관행에서 탈피하여 경찰의 수사기능 강화와 검찰의 공판활동 강화, 공소유지를 위한 경찰ㆍ검찰 협력관계 개선 등의 역할변화가 요구된다. It is a historical change in Korean Criminal Justice System that the Civil Participation in Criminal Trials has been implemented since 2008. Mostly criminal trials in the past were charged by the professional-career judges, while the Civil Participation in Criminal Trials makes it possible that the members of jury can participate in examining all corroborative facts and sentencing in a trial and can provide judges their decision referring to the final decision. The Civil Participation in Criminal Trials fulfills trial center attention and direct trial which make the prosecutor and the defendant be on an equal and helps form trial affection. Testimony of Police Investigator, in addition, will often appear to the criminal trial. The testimony will stand in front of jury panel and the police investigator will testify what they have experienced. Concerned with false evidence, their testimony would have an influence on forming trial affection. More important factor would be whether a testimony of police should maintain a distance from the prosecutor. If the jury consider that a testimony of police was controlled by his supervising prosecutor, his testimony would be far from convincing. In order to make proper trial affection, it is necessary to obtain the confidence of testimony with understandable information by an appropriative police testifier. Therefore, the police investigators require to write an interrogatory statement in due-process, to obtain obvious impeachment evidence when the defendant reverse their statement, to enhance the ability of investigation and improve collaborative association between the police and the prosecutor by avoiding illegal confession and an obsolete way of investigation.

형사소송법 제312조 제1항의 개정에 따른 수사와 공판 실무의 예상되는 변화와 바람직한 운영 방안

김현철 전남대학교 법학연구소 2021 법학논총 Vol.41 No.2

The revision of Article 312 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in 2020 means more in terms of strengthening trial-centeredness beyond the meaning of equalization of the requirements for the recognition of evidence capabilities of the suspect-interrogation protocol prepared by prosecutor and judicial policeman on abolishing prosecutor's command right to judicial policeman and cooperative relationship regulations between prosecutor and judicial policeman. And it is expected to have a greater influence on investigative agencies and court practices. Attempts to revise to the contents demanding requirements of the defendant or lawyer’s ‘content recognition’ regarding the evidence capabilities of the suspect- interrogation protocol prepared by prosecutor were already made when Criminal Procedure Act which aimed at overcoming the harmful effects of the trial of documents and strengthening trial-centeredness was revised in 2007, but it was not revised due to opposition from the prosecution in the legislative process, only the investigator's testimony system was introduced which was discussed on the premise of revising evidence capabilities of the suspect-interrogation protocol prepared by prosecutor. But a legal system for the transition from the trial of documents to trial-centeredness was further established by this revision of Article 312 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In this thesis, author studied the contents of the revision of Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the evidence capabilities of the suspect-interrogation protocol about accomplice prepared by prosecutor under the revised Act, and expected changes and desirable operation measures in investigation and trial practices under the amendment Article 312 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. And in studying expected changes and desirable operation measures in investigation and trial practices under the amendment Article 312 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act author focused on investigator’s testimony. Furthermore, author studied whether independent evidence capabilities for video recordings can be recognized under the interpretation of the current law and whether it is desirable to introduce the recognition of independent evidence capabilities for video recordings as legislative theories for the discovery of true facts and quick and efficient trials under the situation that the suspect-interrogation protocol which the evidence capabilities had been recognized under eased requirements even if the defendant denies the contents has become incapable of evidence only by the defendant's contents denying. Author presented an opinion that it is reasonable to judge the evidence capabilities by Article 312 (4) regarding the evidence capabilities of the suspect-interrogation protocol about accomplice under the amended Act. And author presented an opinion that it will be necessary to run a practical operation so that the trial, including evidence investigation, can be conducted in the court, away from the nostalgia to convenience and efficiency of the document trial, and the investigator's testimony should be activated and operated as a universal method of evidence under the situation that the provisions of the evidence capabilities of the suspect-interrogation protocol prepared by prosecutor have been revised and the investigator testimony system has been introduced in order to strengthen trial-centeredness. Furthermore, author presented an opinion that it is not possible to recognize the independent evidence capabilities for video recordings according to the interpretation of the current Criminal Procedure Act and legislative theory about recognition of independent evidence capabilities for video recordings is also undesirable from a point of view of the purpose of the revised 2007 and 2020 Criminal Procedure Act and practical meaning of trial-centeredness. 2020년 형소법 제312조 제1항의 개정은 검사의 사법경찰관에 대한 지휘권 폐지 및 검사와 사법경찰관의 협력관계 규정에 따른 검사와 사법경찰관 작성의 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 인정요건의 동일화라는 의미를 넘어 공판중심주의의 강화라는 관점에서 더 큰 의미가 있고, 수사기관과 법원 실무에 엄청난 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상된다. 검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력과 관련하여 피고인 또는 변호인의 ‘내용인정’을 요건으로 하는 내용으로의 개정 시도는 조서재판의 폐해 극복과 공판중심주의 강화를 목표로 한 2007년 형소법 개정시 이미 있었으나 입법과정에서 검찰의 반대로 개정되지 못하고 검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 조항 개정을 전제로 논의되던 조사자증언제도만 도입되었으나 이번 형소법 제312조 제1항의 개정으로 조서재판에서 공판중심주의로의 전환을 위한 법제도가 한층 더 완비되게 되었다. 본 논문에서는 형소법 제312조의 개정 내용, 개정법 하에서의 공범에 대한 검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력에 대하여 살펴본 후 형소법 제312조 제1항의 개정에 따라 예상되는 수사와 공판 실무의 변화와 바람직한 운영 방안을 조사자증언을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 나아가 그동안 피고인이 내용을 부인하는 경우에도 완화된 요건하에 증거능력이 인정되어 오던 검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력이 피고인의 내용부인만으로 증거능력이 없게 됨에 따라 이를 보완하고 실체진실의 발견과 신속하고 효율적인 재판을 위하여 현행법의 해석상 영상녹화물에 독립적인 증거능력을 인정할 수 있는지 및 입법론으로 이를 도입하는 것이 바람직한지에 대하여도 검토하였다. 개정법 하에서의 공범에 대한 검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력과 관련하여 형소법 제312조 제4항에 의하여 증거능력을 판단하는 것이 타당함을 밝혔다. 그리고 공판중심주의의 강화를 위해 검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 조항을 개정하고, 조사자증언제도가 도입된 이상 이제는 조서재판의 편리성, 효율성에 대한 향수에서 벗어나 법정을 중심으로 증거조사를 비롯한 재판이 이루어질 수 있도록 실무운영이 이루어져야 할 것이고, 조사자증언이 활성화되어 보편적인 증거방법으로 운영되어야 할 것이라는 견해를 제시하였다. 나아가 영상녹화물에 독립적인 증거능력을 인정할 수 있는지 및 입법론으로 이를 도입하는 것이 바람직한지와 관련하여 현행 형소법 규정의 해석에 의할 때 영상녹화물에 독립적인 증거능력을 인정할 수 없고, 공판중심주의를 강화한 2007년 및 2020년 개정 형소법의 취지 및 공판중심주의의 실천적 의미에 비추어 볼 때 영상녹화물에 대하여 독립적인 증거능력을 인정하는 방향으로의 입법론도 바람직하지 않다는 견해를 제시하였다.

경찰관 법정증언의 도입배경과 의의 - 조서재판과의 관계를 중심으로

김동혁 한국경찰연구학회 2017 한국경찰연구 Vol.16 No.3

수사단계의 피의자 진술을 재판정에 현출하는 방식은 전통적으로 조서에 의한 방법이었으며, 개정된 형사소송법에 의해 경찰관의 법정증언도 가능하다. 조서의 증거능력 인정은 일제 강점기 식민지 사법체계의 내용이 우리 법에 계수되면서 해방 후 우리 형사소송법의 주요한 내용이 되었다. 그러나 진술을 얻기 위한 수사단계의 고문, 강압행위 등은 조서재판의 큰 문제점으로 부각되었다. 또한 조서재판은 근대적 형사소송법의 원칙인 구두주의와 변론주의에도 배치된다. 따라서 조사자증언제도는 식민지 시대 이후로 뿌리 깊게 관행으로 내려오던 고문과 강압수사를 효과적으로 방지하는 기능과 근대 형사소송법의 원칙인 구두주의와 변론주의에 한 층 접근할 수 있는 제도로서의 역할을 하게 되었다는 기능적 의의가 있다. 경찰관 법정증언이 중요한 증거로 인정받음에 따라 경찰수사의 적법성, 투명성은 더욱 중요해졌으며, 민주적 사법질서 마련에도 큰 역할을 할 수 있게 되었다. Reports from the police and prosecutors in Korea are recognized as admissibility evidence. The report-based trial continued to this day. This method came from the Japanese colonial period and this approach involves the risk of coercion and torture. The principles of the Modern Criminal Procedure Act are defenseism and openness. So the Korean Criminal Procedure Law stipulates police witness testimony and recognized as admissibility evidence as well. Colonial criminal justice and authoritarian criminal proceedings were cleared by the introduction of investigator testimony. For the settlement of the correct criminal justice system, the investigator testimony system has achieved the developmental achievements of the people 's human rights and defendant' s right of defense. I hope that the investigator testimony system will contribute to the legitimacy and transparency of police investigations and provide a basis for the establishment of a democratic police investigation framework. Yet the reports from the prosecutor are still recognized for admissibility evidence. Because of this, the investigator’s testimony weakens the utility. This is a problem to be solved in the future.

개정 형사소송법 제316조에 대한 고찰

임웅(Yim, Woong),도규엽(Do, Gyu-Yeob) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2011 성균관법학 Vol.23 No.2

One of the important parts of the Amended Criminal Procedure Law is specifying admissibility of investigator’s testimony in the law. It is included in the Amended Code of Criminal Procedure 316 which is related to hearsay statements. However, as long as this code grants permission to bring document form of police officer’s or prosecutor’s report as well as investigator’s testimony to a court as evidence, there is possibility that illegal investigation will be brought into being and the defendant’s right to defend himself will be being infringed. But if the Criminal Procedure Law of South Korea allows investigative agency party to use just testimonial evidence only, no document form of police officer’s or prosecutor’s report, as the way to set forth evidence, admissibility of investigator’s testimony will play a role in protecting the suspect’s human rights and the defendant’s right to defend himself and enhancing investigative environment in terms of transparency, due process, and fair trial. This is not only in accord with the intensification of court initiative which was the ultimate goal of reforming the Criminal Procedure Law in 2007, but also necessary for successful operation of jury trial system.

개정형사소송법(改正刑事訴訟法)에 대한 고찰(考察) -경찰 수사 실무상 주의사항을 중심으로-

이선근 ( Sum Keun Lee ) 한국경찰이론과실무학회 2009 경찰연구논집 Vol.5 No.-

개정된 ‘형사소송법’은 ‘국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률’과 함께 배심제도 도입과 공판중심주의 강화, 긴급체포제도 개선, 보석, 재정신청 확대, 피의자 신문조서의 증거능력 등 많은 변화를 가져오고 있다. 1) 공판중심주의가 강화되어 공판준비절차가 신설되었고, 피고인의 방어권 강화를 위한 증거개시제도가 도입되었고, 재정신청이 확대되었으며, 인신구속제도가 보강되면서 보석도 확대되었다. 그러나 본 연구에서는 개정형사소송법 중에서도 경찰수사 활동과 직, 간접적으로 관련이 많은 부분에 대해서만 검토하여 보았는데, 이는 단기적으로는 일선경찰의 개정형사소송법에 대한 일선경찰관들의 이해를 높여, 수사 실무상 적용시 발생할 수 있는 오류와 혼란을 방지하고, 장기적으로는 향후 형사소송법 개정 논의시 국민들로부터 경찰의 신뢰를 높이기 위함이다. 그리고 결론에서는 경찰의 수사권 확보를 위한 노력은 사회안전 확보를 위한 정부정책, 행정기관 상호간의 관계, 사법제도 등 여러 방향에서 종합적으로 해결하여야 할 문제이지만, 결국 형사소송법의 개정에 필수적으로 반영되어야 가능한 문제이므로 이러한 검토를 바탕으로 향후 경찰의 형사소송법 연구방향과 수사권조정을 위한 경찰의 연구 방향등에 대해 몇 가지 의견들을 제시해 보았다. 향후 경찰 내,외의 많은 전문가들이 더욱 훌륭한 연구들을 축적하여 국민의 경찰이 본연의 업무인 범죄 척결 능력을 보다 향상시킬 수 있도록 이끌어 주기를 기대한다. The newly revised Criminal Procedure Act which has suffered throes for long time is putting in force. Although the article of the investigation right for police` desire was not amended, there have been so many changes especially in the introduction of jury system & proof beginning system, emergency arrest betterment, a seizure & search, a bail enlargement & enactment application increase, probative power of the suspected inquiry record & the charging police officer`s court testimony. Many parts closely related to our police investigation such as the law of the process were revised and impacted on the changes of police investigation. Our police who should exert efforts to secure the power of investigation need to prevent the confusion and error from the beginning of revised law enforcement. If police would do so, they could get the trust from people and academic world. In this article, the main parts of the new Criminal Procedure Act directly and indirectly related to the police investigation are reviewed. I have studied the influence of police investigation for the enactment application increase, the lawyer`s participation of interrogating the suspected, the changed items of the way of interrogating the suspected, the law effect of statement video, the things cautious in emergency arrest and seizure & research, the articles for the law of eliminating illegally collected proof, the record for the questioning process, the things cautious for introduction of interrogator`s testimony system. Although the insurance of police investigation right should be comprehensively settled in the various debate with government policy for social security guarantee, the relation among administration agencies, and judicial system etc., I have suggested several methods in conclusion for the research directions of police`s criminal procedure act because it needs to be adopted in the new revision of criminal procedure law for police investigation right.