공판이 진실발견의 장이 되어야 한다는 데는 많은 사람들이 동의할 것이 다. 우리 법 제310조의2도 법정에서의 진술을 최상위에 두고 있다. 이 점 은 대륙법의 직접심리주의이든 영미법의 전문법칙이든 차이가 없다. 사실 판단자가 법정에서 진술을 듣고 진실을 발견하라고 한다. 하지만 이러한 원칙에 모두 예외를 두고 있다. 전문법칙에도 법정 외 진 술을 사실인정의 자료로 쓰는 예외가 꽤 규정되어 있고, 직접심리주의에서 도 법관 앞에서 한 진술은 법정 외 진술이어도 증거로 할 수 있는 길을 열 어두고 있다. 이제 문제는 수사기관이 작성한 서류라면 조금 더 폭넓게 증거능력의 예 외를 인정할 것인가? 검증조서에 수사기관의 목격 진술을 적고, 압수조서나 수사보고서에도 적게 할 것인가, 하는 점이다. 그건 아니라고 본다. 예외가 원칙을 훼손하지 않도록 하기 위해서는 우리 대법원이 어느 지점 에선가 ‘더는 안 된다’는 말을 해 주어야 한다. 검증조서와 압수조서, 수 사보고서에 들어가 있는 진술의 증거능력에 대한 법원의 꼼꼼하고 단호한 검토를 기대하는 이유다. 중요한 것은, 증거서류 규정의 합리적 해석을 통 해 공판중심주의를 강화하는 것이기 때문이다.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Korea gives very important opinion for the evidence law in general, ① Lowering of the probative power of the statesment in the protocol of investigative agent in the light of the weakness of the written record ② Unrecognizing the proof value of the statements where the cross-examination lacks. First, With indicating the inaccuracy of the record in the light of statements in fact, lowering of the probative power of the statesments in the protocol of investigative agent in general is inappropriate. In order to complement such a weakness, the law provide the strict provisions for the protocol drawing up. Furthermore, this kind of view falls into difficulty in answer to the question, “Can be the lowering problems all solved, if we, for the complement of such weakness, record the total statements or record them in tapes or video tapes?” This problem is not for statement in the protocol, but for the probative power of the out of court statement. Probative power is the thing which should be judged in each case individually with considering total situation with relation to the situation in which the statements were made, contents of the statements and comparison with other evidences. By the way, the problem of confrontation has important meaning from the new tendency which views the problem in other way than hearsay approach. But the method of the Court leads to the confusion with the meaning or the standard because of the termonology which the Court has used, that is , substantial proof value and inadmissible. Recently, the problem of confrontation is understood as a procedural right of the defendant in the criminal procedure and there is an American approach and a European Union approach. In my opinion, Considering our constitutional provision and criminal procedure, the European Union solution is proper. The admissiblity of the statements made in the situation in which the defendant cannot confront the speaker should be judged be the standard of the fairness of the process, that is, the question, “Would it harm the fairness of the process in the whole to admit the statements?” By the judgement, it would give an important ground to see the resposibility of the investigative agent for the nonconfrontation situation. But the responsibility of the investigative agent should not be an absolute ground for the inadmissibility of the statements, but would be the ground for prudent judgement of the probative power considering whether the substantial parts of the statements could be confirmed by other materials, when the statements are the only one important evidence to support the charge. Furthermore, Because the time of the confrontation is not limited to the trial, it would be useful to evaluate the provision in our criminal procedure for the interrogation with confrontation by the public attorney and investigative officer and to use it as a meaningful tool for guaranteeing the chance of confrontation of the defendant.