형사소송법 제56조는 공판기일의 소송절차에 관한 것으로 공판조서에 기재된 것은 그 공판조서만으로 증명한다고 규율하고 있다. 이는 증거가 치 판단에 대해 자유심증주의를 채택하고 있는 형사소송법의 중대한 예외이다. 위와 같은 공판조서의 배타적 증명력 규정은 상소심에서의 소송 경제를 위한 입법적 결단이라 할 것이다. 공판조서의 배타적 증명력은 공판기일에서의 소송절차에 관한 사항에만 인정된다. 사건의 실체적 내용에 관해서는 배타적 증명력이 인정되지 아니한다. 그 밖에 공판조서가 존재하지 아니하는 경우, 멸실된 경우, 권한 없는 자에 의하여 작성된 경우, 소송관계인들의 이의제기가 있는 경우나 피고인의 공판조서열람권이 침해된 경우, 그리고 공판조서가 위조·변조·허위기재된 경우 등에도 배타적 증명력이 부정된다. 한편 대법원은 공판조서에 명백한 오기가 있는 경우 그 공판조서는 올바른 내용대로 증명력을 가진다고 판시함으로써 제56조의 해석론에 관한 큰 전기를 마련하였다. 위 판례는 공판조서의 배타적 증명력을 다투려는 시도를 계속 부인해 온 그간의 입장으로부터 진일보한 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 공판조서의 근본적인 한계는, 그것에 실제 형사절차에서 있었던 모든 사건을 있는 그대로 기재할 수 없다는 점이다. 따라서 공판조서의 정확성과 신뢰성을 높이려면 공판정에서의 속기·녹음·영상녹화를 보다 활성화할 필요가 있으며, 필요한 경우에는 속기·녹음·영상녹화로 공판조서를 보완·수정하는 것도 가능하도록 해야 한다. 그리고 국민참여재판의 배심원들은 공판조서의 배타적 증명력에 구애받지 않고 평의·평결· 토의할 수 있도록 하는 것이 타당하다.

This research paper is a commentary on the Constitutional Court’s 2013.10.24. sentence 2011 Hunba 79 decision. The point issues of the Constitutional Court’s decisions are as follows. Whether it has violated the principle of definiteness, the principle of excess prohibition, and whether including the accomplice’s protocol of trial in the same article is a violation of the constitution. This writer is a testifier who has suggested a constitutional opinion in the Constitutional Court’s public defense. Therefore, there will be an annotation on the Court’s decision based on the written opinion which may agree with the Court’s basis of decision or have a different perspective towards it. The legislative intent of the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure is to accept creditable papers with exceptions to the hearsay rule, allowing the trial procedure to get along smoothly and contributing to the finding of the truth of substance. Japan, on the other hand does not allow a protocol of trial from a different case to have admissibility of evidence. However, there is not a big difference in the procedure of deciding the actual admissibility. Similarly, the United States enumerates the exceptions to the hearsay rule, presuming it limitedly, but with multiple instances laid in the legislation, there is not much difference, compared to Korea’s criminal procedure, in how the evidence law is operated. In addition, the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure is a regulation on the procedure for the preservation of evidence, not applied to the principle of definiteness. Also, the interpretation itself can concretely determine the range of application, therefore not a vague regulation. As seen above, the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure does not transgress the principle of legal step or the principle of excess prohibition. In short, the provision 3 of Article 315 of the Criminal Procedure is constitutional, considering the legislative intent, comparison with foreign legislation cases, and juridical examination. Though the protocol of trial with an accomplice’s testimony is guaranteed to have a high level of ‘voluntariness’ and ‘due process’ because it is realized in the court before judges, considering the content, there may be a possibility of false testimony to shift responsibility on the defendant. In conclusion, this writer approves of the improvement of the legislation, for it is more desirable to have a definite legislation to guarantee people’s basic human rights and develop the code of criminal procedure based on the principle of constitutional state.

The hearsay rule was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Law by the Act No. 705, Sep. 1, 1961 in Korea. Any document which contains statements in place of the statements made at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt except as provided by a few articles of the Criminal Procedure Law(§310-2). The investigation report which contains statements of witnesses prepared by the public prosecutors or by the judicial police officers may be introduced into evidence if the genuineness thereof is established by the person who made original statements at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial(§312 (1), §313 (1)). If the witnesses are unable to be present or to testify at the preparatory hearing or at the public trial because of death, sickness, residing abroad or other reasons, the recorded statements of witnesses are not excluded by the hearsay rule(§314). And the probative value of evidence shall be left to the discretion of the judges(§308). Recently the innovative reformation of trial has been the hottest issue and the Criminal Procedure Law is amended by the Act No. Apr. 30, 2007. During that turmoil the Supreme Court ruled that even though the admissibility of recorded statements of witnesses is accepted on the basis of agreement between adversarial parties(§318), the credibility of those statements is extremely restricted in the case the confrontation right of the defendant is limited. The witness-investigation report may have probative values when the recorded statements are so accurate that they are self-evident or if other evidences collaborate the reliability of the recorded statements.