범죄 수사상 간접증거의 증명력 강화 방안 = Measures to Strengthen the Probative Power of Indirect Evidence in Criminal Investigation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As crimes become more advanced and sophisticated, securing direct evidence has become increasingly challenging. As a result, the importance of proving 'indirect evidence' has emerged as a crucial issue in criminal investigations.This study initially identifies the general principles required by our Supreme Court for the proof of indirect evidence and then derives the elements that determine the evidentiary strength of such evidence. Subsequently, four cases with conflicting guilty and not guilty verdicts, centered on the evidentiary strength of indirect evidence, were analyzed. To establish the causal regularity of these cases, the key factors for proving indirect evidence were derived by applying John Stuart Mill's Method of Difference to small-N data. Moreover, We aimed to provide objective standards for the decision-making and argumentation processes that rely solely on indirect evidence for proving criminal facts. This was illustrated using an embezzlement case scenario to explain the abduction and the elimination of competing hypotheses through retroduction. The case analysis highlighted that the 'motive for the crime' and 'the impeachment of dubious circumstances' are significant elements in the acknowledgment of facts. In addition, a verification checklist for serious crime investigations was proposed, which could be of substantial practical assistance. This study is anticipated to aid investigative agencies not only in proving criminal allegations but also in the verification procedures.