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.