형사절차법은 형사사법기관에 부여된 권한의 법적 근거를 명확히 하고 그 한계를 설정함과 동시에, 피의자·피고인의 절차적 권리를 보장하는 기제 로 작용한다. 따라서 국민 관점에서는 자신의 절차적 권리 보장을 위해, 형 사사법기관 관점에서는 적법절차 실현을 위해 이는 이해하기 쉽게 구성될 필요가 있다. 그러나 우리 「형사소송법」 편장 체계를 살펴보면, 마치 ‘법이 론서’처럼 공판절차에서 공통적으로 적용될 수 있는 내용을 제1편 총칙으 로 하고, 이후 형사절차 전 과정에서 이를 준용하는 방식으로 구성되어, 일 반 국민뿐만 아니라 법률 전문가들조차도 이해에 어려움을 겪고 있다는 비 판이 제기되고 있다. 특히, 수사절차와 관련해서는 형사실무에서 가장 먼저 개시되는 절차임에도 불구하고 관련 법조문은 제1편 총칙 이후 제2편 제1 장 제195조에 이르러서야 비로소 등장하고, 강제수사 등에 있어 법원의 재 판을 기준으로 설정된 총칙상의 강제처분 요건과 절차를 준용하도록 하는 등으로 인해 이러한 현상은 가장 심각하게 나타난다. 본 논문은 現 「형사소 송법」 편장 체계 개선 연구를 위한 시론(時論)으로, 우리 「형사소송법」의 원 류라고 알려진 프랑스 형사절차법 편장 체계를 검토한다. 1959년에 제정· 시행되고 있는 프랑스 「형사절차법전」뿐만 아니라, 일제(日帝)가 수용하여 우리 법제 형성에 영향을 끼친 1808년 「치죄법전」의 편장 체계를 함께 검 토하여 두 법전 간의 변화 양상을 살펴보고, 우리 「형사소송법」과의 비교법 적 분석을 통해 향후 우리 법제 개선을 위한 시사점을 도출한다. 연구 결 과, 프랑스 형사절차법 편장 체계가 보이는 기관중심·실무중심적 특성은 우 리 「형사소송법」 편장 체계가 나타내는 단점을 해소하는 방안이 될 수 있 을 것으로 판단되며, 향후 「수사절차법」 제정이나 「형사소송법」 편장 체계 개선논의에 있어 참고할 필요가 있을 것으로 생각한다.

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.

After 2000, the Supreme Court of Korea did not follow just its former rulings in some criminal procedure cases. Rather the Court has chosen to underscore due process in the Korean Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act and proceed to present more strict standards on usual practices. And in the first decade of the 21st century, the National Assembly, the Court, the Prosecutors' Office, and the academic circles have continually exerted influence over one another. As a result, the Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2007 and took effect on and after Jan. 1, 2008. In this article, some supreme court cases in the criminal procedure are reviewed. These cases involve the exclusionary rule, the right to counsel, the admissibility of statements, and digital evidence, which are related to the revise of the Act or the change of practical routines. The revised Act introduced the exclusionary rule to the criminal justice system. The Court refused to apply the rule to the illegally obtained physical evidence. But it changed the former rulings in Supreme Court 2007. 11. 15. 2007do3061 and held that, in principle, the exclusionary rule and the fruit of Poisonous Tree doctrine should be applied to physical evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure which violated the process of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act. In Supreme Court 2011. 5. 26. 2009mo1190, the Court affirmed the courts' practice which made a limitation on the executive way of search and seizure warrant by the additional notes. And that ruling led the newly establishment of the article 106 ③ of the revised Act. In November 2003, the Supreme Court of Korea held that a suspect in custody had the right to counsel during interrogation. And in September 2004, the Constitutional Court of Korea determined to confer the right to counsel on a suspect without custody. After these decisions, the Criminal Procedure Act had an explicit provision for the right in 2007. On the other hand, the Court had maintained its rulings that if the formal authenticity of the statements by a suspect in the protocol of prosecutor is affirmed, the substantial authenticity of the statements was presumed and might be admissible. But the Court changed its former rulings in Supreme Court en banc 2004. 12. 16. 2002do537 and held that the substantial authenticity may also be affirmed only by an admission of the author. And in case of digital evidence, the Court has told that digital evidence may be admissible only if it falls under the hearsay exceptions where it is testimonial.