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.

The study confirmed the "house search report(家宅搜索調書)" containing criminal records during the Japanese colonial period, as well as the production process and the way of expressing the illustrations contained in them. It also explored architectural values through analysis of the location and use of the building. This records the discovery of evidence by searching the residences of those involved in the crime from 1919 to 1922. The illustrations contained in this record were not standardized, so the contents of the article differed depending on the author's background and cultural experience. Nevertheless, this painting reflects the regional characteristics of traditional houses located throughout the Korean Peninsula. It is also evidence that the house was used for cultural, commercial, and industrial purposes, beyond the general assumption that it was used only for residential purposes. The "House Search Report(家宅搜索調書)" provides information on ordinary buildings that existed as the background of everyday life, rather than buildings with a specific purpose or exceptional design. It is evaluated as an important resource for understanding the diverse life and spatial structures of buildings during that time.

대상판례에는 두 가지 문제가 있다. 첫째, 대상판례는 숫자 세기를 잘못하고 있다. 전문진술 상황은 매체가 하나인 경우고 재전문진술은 매체가 두 개인 경우다. 조서는 그것 자체로 매체 2개, 즉, 수사기관과 조서를 포함하고 있기 때문에 숫자를 셀 때 둘로 세야 한다. 이건 우리가 선택할 수 있는 문제가 아니라 전문법칙을 채용한 모든 나라에서 지켜야 하는 정의에 관한 문제다. 둘째, 제316조 제1항은 ‘공판준비 또는 공판기일에서의 진술’이라고 규정함으로써 공판정에서의 진술에 적용되는 조항임을 명확히 하고 있다. 수사기관에서 진술한 자에 대해서 적용되는 규정이 아니다. 수사기관 앞에서 진술하면서 진술자가 자신이 경험한 바가 아니라 피고인이 진술한 것을 그대로 되뇌어, 결과적으로 피고인의 방어권 보장에 문제가 생길 수는 있다. 그 문제의 해결 방법은 원진술자를 불러서 같은 진술을 반복 하게 하거나, 최소한 성립의 진정을 인정하게 하면 되는 것이다. 그럼으로써 제316조의 취지를 충분히 구현할 수 있다. 그렇지 않고, ‘조서 상 진술도 전문진술이니까 바로 제316조 제1항이 적용된다,’라고 결론을 내리는 것은 특별한 실익도 없이 문제를 복잡하게 만든다. 조서 안의 진술을 진술, 전문진술, 재전문진술로 나누는 것이기 때문이다. 지금 생각해 보면, 두고두고 아쉬운 것은 제310조의2를 도입할 때 지금 위치에 둘 게 아니라 제314조와 제315조 사이에 두지 못한 점이다. 그랬다면 제311조와 제314조까지는 조서규정으로 남고, 제315조와 제 316조는 전문법칙의 예외로 분리되었을 것이다. 즉, 우리 법은 직접주의의 원칙에 따라 조서의 증거능력도 제한하고, 영미에서 수입한 전문법칙도 갖춘, 피고인의 방어권 보장에 충실한 법이 되었을 것이다. 그런데 조서규정 앞에 전문법칙 규정을 둠으로써 모든 게 헝클어져 버렸다. 조서가 전문법칙의 예외로 읽히는 이상한 상황을 맞게 된 것이다.

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.

공판정 또는 그 외에서 한 공범자의 자백이 다른 공범자인 피고인의 공소사실과 관련하여 증거능력을 가질 수 있는가, 증거능력을 갖는다면 그 요건은 무엇인가 하는 문제, 즉 "공범자의 자백"의 증거능력 및 증명력의 문제는 이론적 또는 실무적으로 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 그리고 공범관계에 있는 공동피고인의 자백을 다른 공범자인 피고인에 대한 유죄증거로 사용할 수 있는가에 관한 논의의 핵심은, 증거법의 기본원칙인 직접심리주의와 전문증거법칙 그리고 자유심증주의와 자백배제 및 자백보강법칙간의 관계설정에 있다. 따라서 공동피고인이 공범자인 경우에는 그 진술의 증거능력을 인정함에 있어서는 이해관계의 특수성에 기한 위험성을 고려하여 보다 신중해야 할 것으로 생각된다. 그렇기 때문에 증거능력과 관련해서는 공판정의 진술보다는 공판정외의 진술의 증거능력을 인정함에 보다 엄격한 제한을 가하는 것이 타당하다.

In the korean supreme court case in question, the fact needs to be reconsidered, that the prosecutor’s record containing the statement of witness that becomes the decisive evidence to prove the guilt was left out. Especially, even though the court judged that the chance of cross-examination was provided to the declarant of the record and there was no substantial violation of procedural rules, it could have assess the circumstantial guarantees of truthworthiness. Every issue will be absorbed into the principle of free evaluation of evidence, if the admissibility of the prosecutor’s record is not considered. It is so hard to completely agree with the argument of the dissenting opinion in which in case of inconsistent statements more weight of reliability must be placed on a court testimony. It is because it is clearly in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence to simply more rely on a court testimony in case of inconsistent statement. In light of the facts appearing in the case in question, it was possible to assess reliability of circumstances of statement separately from total consideration of reliability of evidences. Most of all, the witness’ statement before prosecutor should not have easily admitted when considering its’doubtful circumstances. Therefore, the courts, expecially the appellate court, should have closely examined the circumstances by having the persons related to the prosecutor’s interrogation take the stance. Because this process was left out, the requirement of the circumstantial guarantees of truthworthiness was not satisfied.

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 Criminal Procedure Act of Korea prescribes that a written statement prepared by the investigative authority is admissible as evidence, only if it was prepared in compliance with the due process and proper method. The requirement of ‘due process and proper method’ means the legality of the process and method of preparing a written statement by the investigative authority. On the other hand, the Article 7 of the Korean act on protection of specific crime informants(hereinafter referred to as “the informants protection act”) provides that when any retaliation is likely to be taken against an informant of a crime or his/her relatives, prosecutors or police officers are not required to note all or part of information which verifies the identity of the informant of the crime, such as a name, age, address or occupation. In regard to the requirement of ‘due process and proper method’, it is questionable whether a written statement of witness under a pseudonym is admissible as evidence where it is prepared on the crimes other than the specific crime prescribed in the informants protection act. In this case, the lower court and the appellate court decided that a written statement of witness under a pseudonym was not admissible because the questioned crime of blackmail was not the specific crime and the statement under a pseudonym did not comply with the due process and proper method. On the contrary, the Supreme Court of Korea decided that the investigative authority could prepare the protocol of a written statement under a pseudonym, if there had been a probable cause considering a combination of circumstances such as the relation between witness and the defendant, the type of crime, the necessity of protecting the witness because the Criminal Procedure Act did not require a real name in the written statement to verify the identity of witness. And the Court ruled that the meaning of ‘due process and proper method’ prescribed in the Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act was that the investigative authority must comply with all process and methods provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, like informing of the right to remain silent where a written statement was prepared. However, the balancing test of a probable cause in the ruling has a problem with not presenting a bright-line rule in the investigative procedure and arousing new controversies.

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.

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.

On the evidence for the impeachment, in literature, four problems are in discussion. At first, whether a hearsay evidence is admissible for impeachment, although it is not admissible in view of the hearsay rule. Second, whether the oral evidence of the defendant in trial is impeachable, and whehter the defendant's pre-trial statements protocol of the police is admissible for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. At last, whether the authentification is required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. For first problem, though a hearsay evidence is not admissible according to the hearsay rule, it is admissible for impeachment. The hearsay rule is operated only where pre-trial statement is produced for asserting the truth of the statement. Because impeachment is not asserting the truth of the pre-trial statement, but swaying the crediblity of the oral evidence in trial, hearsay rule is not operated when the evidence is produced for impeachment. For second problem, the oral evidence of the defendant in trial can be impeached for the appropriate way of truth-finding. In practice, the prior inconsistent statement of the defendant can be often used for impeaching the oral evidence of the defendant in trial. § 312 ② of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. Because of the provision, some say that the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol is not admissible for impeachment when the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment. But the Court admits the defendant's pre-trial statesments protocol although the defendant or the counsel of the defendant denies the truth of the statesment, and it is with me on that. For the last problem, the majority in literature and the Court are with the opinion that the authentification is not required for the admissiblity of the hearsay written statement for impeachment. In this point I cannot agree with the Court. The requirement of the authentification is essential for producing all the evidences. It is a different rule from the hearsay rule. In my opinion, It could be said that the majority and the Court confuse the difference. It should be said that a hearsay written statement cannot be used for impeachment when it is not authentifcated.