수사과정 영상녹화물의 증거사용에 관한 연구 (A Study on Using Video Recording of an Investigative Process as Evidence in Trial)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한양법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한양법학 / 30권 / 3호 / 27 ~ 48페이지
· 저자명 : 이상한

초록

A report drawn up by an investigative agency has been granted strong admissibility of evidence for a long time, as an exception to the hearsay rule. However, this practice led to a focus on confession in investigations and consequent report-oriented trials, thereby fostering coercive investigation; as such, it has been criticized since the enactment of Criminal Procedural Law and has been at the center of academic debates and judicial precedents. Diversified efforts have been made to prevent violation of human rights during investigation and to enhance transparency of investigations, and particularly, backed by technological advancement, video recording of an investigation was recognized as a new evidence, and incorporated into the Criminal Procedural Law revised in 2007.
According to the revised Criminal Procedural Law, video recordings made by an investigative agency can be used either to prove substantial authenticity of investigation reports (Article 312 (2) and (4)) or to evoke memory of a person making a statement at a law court (Article 318-2 (2)). However, even now, a stark controversy surrounds the nature of video recording of an investigation as an evidence: One side claims that such recording should be granted admissibility of evidence on its own, while the other side refutes the idea. To deter report-oriented trial that has been criticized as a persistent problem in criminal trials in Korea and to promote court-oriented trial and examination by the court, it is essential to reduce reliance on investigation reports that hold a dominant position as evidence in criminal trials in Korea. Similarly, video recordings of an investigation need to be utilized restrictively. In this vein, it would be advisable not to acknowledge admissibility of evidence for video recordings of an investigation on its own.

영어초록

A report drawn up by an investigative agency has been granted strong admissibility of evidence for a long time, as an exception to the hearsay rule. However, this practice led to a focus on confession in investigations and consequent report-oriented trials, thereby fostering coercive investigation; as such, it has been criticized since the enactment of Criminal Procedural Law and has been at the center of academic debates and judicial precedents. Diversified efforts have been made to prevent violation of human rights during investigation and to enhance transparency of investigations, and particularly, backed by technological advancement, video recording of an investigation was recognized as a new evidence, and incorporated into the Criminal Procedural Law revised in 2007.
According to the revised Criminal Procedural Law, video recordings made by an investigative agency can be used either to prove substantial authenticity of investigation reports (Article 312 (2) and (4)) or to evoke memory of a person making a statement at a law court (Article 318-2 (2)). However, even now, a stark controversy surrounds the nature of video recording of an investigation as an evidence: One side claims that such recording should be granted admissibility of evidence on its own, while the other side refutes the idea. To deter report-oriented trial that has been criticized as a persistent problem in criminal trials in Korea and to promote court-oriented trial and examination by the court, it is essential to reduce reliance on investigation reports that hold a dominant position as evidence in criminal trials in Korea. Similarly, video recordings of an investigation need to be utilized restrictively. In this vein, it would be advisable not to acknowledge admissibility of evidence for video recordings of an investigation on its own.

참고자료

· 없음