In 2007, the Criminal Procedure Act has been changed into actually new law reflecting the social demands to protect the rights of defendants and suspects in the criminal procedure. The Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2011, adding the relevance as a requirement of seizure and specifying the range and method of seizure or search on digital evidence. And it supplemented the method of proving the authenticity of digital evidence with some amendments in 2016. It can be said that it has continued to influence the Supreme Court precedent and the precedent also influenced legislation and investigation practice and led to change.

This article examines the trends of major cases in the proceedings and evidence law since 2007. The Supreme Court’s cases on investigation procedures and evidence law have consistently emphasized the due process principles of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, and apply strict standards for existing practices throughout the investigation process including voluntary company, arrest, interrogation, and occasionally have suggested standards and directions of practice from the perspective of judicial control.

In particular, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence was applied to use of material evidence and the evidence that was illegally collected by the investigating agency in violation of the due process could not be used as evidence of guilt in principle. In the exceptional case that the procedural violation is not equivalent to the violation of the substantive contents of the due process, and the exclusion of the evidence is against the harmonization of the due process and substantive truth in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, the evidence can be used. Thereafter, the Supreme Court has elaborated the criteria and exceptional jurisprudence on the illegally obtained evidence through various precedents.

Since 2007, there have been important precedents related to the seizure of digital evidence, the authenticity and exceptional application of hearsay rule on digital evidence, and specific precedents on the interpretation and standards of exceptional application of hearsay rule of the revised Criminal Procedure Act, which were also the starting point of a new discussion.

And this article suggests that, for right judicial justice, the two axes of the due process principle and the request for the discovery of the substantive truth should be mutually realized in harmony rather than abandoning any one.

Ⅰ. 들어가며
 Ⅱ. 수사절차
  1. 피의자 수사
   (1) 임의동행의 적법요건
   (2) 음주운전자 보호조치의 한계
   (3) 피의자신문
  2. 수사상 압수 ․ 수색 ․ 검증
   (1) 압수물의 범죄사실과의 관련성
   (2) 사후 압수수색영장의 발부
   (3) 강제채혈의 성질과 허용요건
   (4) 압수수색영장의 집행절차
   (5) 디지털증거에 대한 압수수색
   (6) 임의제출
 Ⅲ. 증 거
  1. 위법수집증거배제법칙
   (1) 위법수집증거배제법칙의 수용
   (2) 위법수집증거배제법칙의 주장적격
   (3) 거증책임
   (4) 위법성의 치유 가부
   (5) 위법수집증거의 2차적 증거(파생증거)
   (6) 공소제기 후 수소법원 이외의 판사로부터 발부받은 영장에의한 증거
   (7) 사인이 위법하게 수집한 증거
  2. 전문법칙의 예외
   (1) 검사 또는 사법경찰관 작성의 조서 등(법 제312조)
   (2) 진술서 등(법 제313조)
   (3) 원진술자의 진술불능(법 제314조)
   (4) 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태의 증명
   (5) 당연히 증거능력 있는 서류(법 제315조)
   (6) 전문진술(법 제316조)
  3. 디지털 증거의 증거능력
   (1) 개 관
   (2) 디지털 정보 사본 또는 출력물의 진정성(동일성과 무결성)
   (3) 전문증거로서의 디지털증거
   (4) 비전문증거인 디지털증거
 Ⅳ. 마치며
 [참고문헌 및 판례]
 [Abstract]

• 김윤섭(Prosecutor Professor in Institute of Justice) | Kim, Yoon-Seob