압수물의 범죄사실과의 관련성과 적법합 압수물의 증거사용 범위 (The Relevancy of the Seizure to the Charged Crime and the Extent of the Utilization of the Legally Seized Evidence)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국형사판례연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 형사판례연구 / 23권 / 535 ~ 574페이지
· 저자명 : 이완규

초록

The relevancy of the seized evidence to the charged crime is a very important issue in that it is connected with the exclusionary rule and there is some risk the evidence could be excluded in trial. Therefore it should be interpreted with sufficient consideration with the various situation in which the investigation is carried, diverse kinds of evidences which are gathered for investigating and prosecuting crime. This relevancy means the evidential value for investigation and prosecution, and the evidential value includes not only the direct but also the indirect and the circumstantial. In this case, it seems that the Supreme Court did not provide sufficient consideration with the various elements of the relevancy, especially the indirect, supplementary, circumstantial value of evidence. Forethemore, it is inappropriate in this case the court of appeal used the issue of relevancy as a tool to restrict the legally obtained evidence relevant to a certain crime from using evidence for other’s crime and the Supreme Court accepted the result. In the future, the discussion which distinguish the issue of relevancy from that of the extent of the utilization of the legally seized evidence should be made actively and lead to the appropriate interpretation.

영어초록

The relevancy of the seized evidence to the charged crime is a very important issue in that it is connected with the exclusionary rule and there is some risk the evidence could be excluded in trial. Therefore it should be interpreted with sufficient consideration with the various situation in which the investigation is carried, diverse kinds of evidences which are gathered for investigating and prosecuting crime. This relevancy means the evidential value for investigation and prosecution, and the evidential value includes not only the direct but also the indirect and the circumstantial. In this case, it seems that the Supreme Court did not provide sufficient consideration with the various elements of the relevancy, especially the indirect, supplementary, circumstantial value of evidence. Forethemore, it is inappropriate in this case the court of appeal used the issue of relevancy as a tool to restrict the legally obtained evidence relevant to a certain crime from using evidence for other’s crime and the Supreme Court accepted the result. In the future, the discussion which distinguish the issue of relevancy from that of the extent of the utilization of the legally seized evidence should be made actively and lead to the appropriate interpretation.

참고자료

· 없음