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.

범죄피해자에 대한 최근의 국제적인 흐름은 UN이 결의한 피해자 선언 의 기본원칙을 최대한 반영하는 ‘피해자보호를 위한 기본권의 강화’에 초 점이 맞추어져 있다. 우리나라도 점차 범죄대책으로서 범죄자 중심에서 범죄피해자에 대한 영역을 확대시키는 방향으로 이동하고 있는 추세이며 학문적으로도 피해자학의 연구를 가속시키고 있는 실정이다. 범죄피해자 는 본인 스스로 일으킨 것이 아닌 타인의 귀책사유로 말미암아 발생한 억울한 사건에서, 그 정도에 따라 막대한 심리적·신체적·경제적·사회 적 타격을 받게 된다. 국민 주권 법치국가로서 국민으로부터 권한을 위 임받은 국가는 국민 개개인의 생명과 재산 및 신체의 안전을 철저하게 보호 하여야하고, 만약 범죄로 인한 피해자가 발생하였을 경우에는 지체 없이 범죄피해자의 회복에 최선을 다하여야 한다. 사회적으로 공감하는 수준에서 범죄피해자를 대신하여 보복 한다는 것과, 그 과정에서 범죄피 해자가 입을 수 있는 2차 피해를 방지하고, 범죄피해 전에 누렸던 인간 다운 생활로의 회복을 해주어야 한다는 것은 권력을 위임받은 국가가 성 실하게 이행해야 할 제1의 과제이다. 범죄의 피해자들은 형사사법절차에 있어서 수사의 단계 뿐 만 아니라 재판과정에 있어서도 자신들의 의견을 말하고 반영되기를 희망하고 있으며, 사건의 절차 진행과정이나 결과에 대하여 많은 정보를 가지기를 원하고 있고, 더 나아가 모든 단계에서 공 정한 대우와 존중받게 되기를 원하고 있다. 2017년 3월 14일 일부 개정 된 ‘범죄피해자 보호법’의 기본이념에서도 이러한 요구를 반영하여 범죄 피해자의 존엄성을 보장하고, 명예와 사생활의 평온에 대한 보호 뿐 만 아니라, 해당사건과 관련하여 각종 법적 절차에 참여할 권리를 기본이념 으로 하고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 아직 형사사법절차에 있어서 범죄피 해자들이 여러 가지 제약과 제도적 미비 등의 사유로 적극적으로 참여하 는 데에는 한계가 있는 실정이다. 이러한 점에 착안하여 이 연구는 범죄 피해자가 형사사법절차에 보다 적극적으로 참여하여 피해자의 권리를 획 득하도록 하는데 그 목적이 있다. 이 연구의 목적을 달성하기 위하여 먼 저, 우리나라의 범죄피해자 참여 현황을 살펴보고, 다음으로 해외 사례들 을 비교법적인 관점에서 분석·고찰하여 시사점을 모색하고 범죄피해자 의 형사사법절차에 대한 참여가 확대될 수 있는 방안을 제시하고자 한 다.

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.

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.

Criminal Procedure Act(CP ACT) Article 266 regulates ‘When a public trial has been instituted, the court shall serve the defendant or his defence counsel with a copy of the indictment without delay---'. According to the Act Article 63 (1), when the dwelling, office or present residence of the defendant is unknown, the service may be made by public notice. Service by public notice may be made only when a court so orders in accordance with the Supreme Court Regulations and service by public notice shall be made by the court administrative officer or clerk preserving the document to be served and by his putting a summary thereof on the court bulletin board to show it to the public{CP ACT Article 64 (1), (2)}. The previous provisions tell us that in case of service by public notice, the defendant has the difficulty to be informed on the schedule on his trial in modern times, and therefore we reach the conclusion that the trial cannot be opened because when the defendant does not appear on the day fixed for public trial, the court shall not sit without special provisions(The Act Article 276). To solve the problem mentioned above, ACT ON SPECIAL CASES CONCERNING EXPEDITION, ETC. OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS(ACT ON SC) has been made. When it is impossible to confirm the whereabouts of an accused, in the procedures at the court of first instance, up to an elapse of 6-month from the time when the report on impossibility of service on the accused has been received, the judgment may be rendered without hearing a statement of the accused under the conditions as determined by the Supreme Court Regualtions(ACT ON SC Article 23). The Supreme Court has decided that the court need to make every effort to find out the whereabouts of an defendant to satisfy the requirements asked by ACT ON SC Article 23. If the court did not make every effort to do, the procedures of the court would be illgal and the decision of the court should be reversed. If so, the defendant may apply for recovery of his right to appeal{When a person entitled to make an appeal --- has been prevented, by a cause not imputable to himself or his representative, from lodging an appeal within the period for making an appeal, he may apply for recovery of his right to appeal(CP ACT Article 345)}. It remains to be seen that how much effort has to be made by lower courts.