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.

I think the spirit of the introduction of the testimony system of investigators, is in order to prevent, it is possible, among other things, what happens to overturn sentence unfair of witness or defendant, the absurd result, to deal effectively with this. If you look at the relevant case law of the testimony system after the introduction of the investigators, the main material used to determine the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness associated with the testimony of investigators. If there is participants at the time, it is possible to mention his statement, a description of statement was created in the course of the investigation. Therefore, in order to be recognized innocuously the special guarantees of trustworthiness from the perspective of law enforcement, it or enlist a person or trusted counsel in the course of the investigation, to record the all process of investigation is most preferred and counsel or if the video recording research and participation of people with a trust relationship has not been made, and that along with the testimony itself of investigators, will be discussed in a comprehensive manner, such as the description of the written statement and assertion of the accused, the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, it is necessary to judge. And, by notifying explicitly whether the certification of special guarantees of trustworthiness associated with the testimony of the investigator in the course of the trial, so as to additional proof activities for inspection, by this, the court, a sufficient psychological it is necessary while securing the article must determine the adoption of evidence.

In the domain of hearsay evidence, “special guarantees of trustworthiness” now occupy a position as a weight requirement by the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2007, and the Supreme Court through the judgment of the recent in order to recognize the admissibility of evidence was required to determine the more stringent requirements of special guarantees of trustworthiness. Despite a major certification requirements for admissibility of hearsay evidence, special guarantees of trustworthiness have not been discussed much in the field of the law of evidence so far, but it was going to appear as important themes because of the Supreme Court and the Code of Criminal Procedure of these amendments, and you should have a lively discussion of this special guarantees of trustworthiness. The court has taken the position that should be judged individually according to case specific about the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness, but it has applied inconsistent criteria or misunderstand the meaning of special guarantees of trustworthiness case-by-case so far.I think that the presence or absence of special guarantees of trustworthiness is necessary to be distinguished clearly with a matter of probative value, and that it is necessary to be judged by the course of statement or the external situation of statement than the credibility of the statement or circle the contents of the original statement as much as possible for avoiding confusion with the problem of determining probative value. And special guarantees of trustworthiness should be distinguished also voluntariness of the statements, and it must be considerated whether the statement was originally carried out in the presence of law enforcement agencies or not, in addition to whether the statement was done to attend the court or not.