우리나라 형사소송법상 위법수집증거배제법칙 (The principle of exclusion of the illegally obtained evidence in the Korean Criminal Procedure Act)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국형사법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 형사법연구 / 26권 / 2호 / 447 ~ 477페이지
· 저자명 : 신양균

초록

독일 형법학에 각인된 한국의 형법학과는 달리 형사소송법 분야에서는 미국법의영향을 많이 받았다. 이론적으로는 이미 1960년대부터 미국의 연방헌법 수정 제14조제1항의 적법절차조항에 기초한 ‘위법수집증거배제법칙’이 우리나라에 수용되었고,2007년에는 이에 대한 입법적 근거가 마련되었다. 그러나 미국에서의 위법수집증거배제에 관한 논의가 위법수사의 억지에 중점을 두고 있는데 비해 우리나라에서는 수사절차나 공판절차를 불문하고 적법절차의 원리에 위반하는 증거들의 사용에 대한문제로 다루고 있다. 이 점에서 우리나라와 미국의 위법수집증거배제법칙은 그 근거나 방향이 반드시 일치하는 것은 아니다. 우리나라에서 위법수집증거배제법칙의 전개는 여전히 그 저울추가 형사사법의 효율성보다 피고인의 인권보장에 기울여져 있다고 판단된다. 2007년의 대법원 판결이 위법수집증거배제법칙에 대해 예외적 허용설을 취하면서 이차적 증거에 대해서도 같은 기준을 적용하고 증거동의에 대한 부정적 입장을 취하고 있는 것도 같은 맥락이다. 실체적 진실발견과 피고인의 인권보장이라는 두 가지 요청을 조화시킨다는 일반원칙을 위법수집증거배제법칙에서 어떻게구체적으로 실현하는가는 새로운 형사소송법 시행 5년이 지난 지금에도 현재 진행형으로 남아 있는 과제로 보인다.

영어초록

The Korean Criminal Procedure Act(KCPA) has been influenced by American criminal procedure law, especially in the field of investigation and evidence law. Above all in the evidence law the KCPA has introduced institutions such as exclusion of involuntary confession(§309) or hearsay evidence(§310.2).
The Constitution of the Republic of Korea in 1987 has changed article about the personal liberty as follows in Article 12, paragraph 1. "All citizens shall enjoy personal liberty. No person shall be arrested, detained, searched, seized or interrogated except as provided by Act. No person shall be punished, placed under preventive restrictions or subject to involuntary labor except as provided by Act and through due process. With this paragraph the Constitution has brazed the way for the interpretation regarding admissibility of illegally obtained evidences. In addition, in the 90s, the case law has denied admissibility of protocol of interrogation by the prosecutor, which has been reported under the cutting off contact with the lawyer. In the famous case known as the Korean Miranda Affair the supreme court has also denied admissibility of statement of the accused, in case the statement has been made without notifying silence right in advance, in despite of its voluntary statement. the reformed KCPA in 2007 has adopted the principle of exclusion of the illegally obtained evidence in Art. 308·2 as follows: the evidence, that is not obtained according to lawful process, shall not be used.
In Connection with interpretation of this article the supreme court stand firm on the exceptional Admissibility of the illegally obtained evidence, though the deviation from the procedural rule is not serious infraction.
According the precedent and the major theory the illegally obtained evidence by private person can be used in principle, in case that the balancing test between individual interest of the accused and the public interest of effective law enforcement give priority to public interests.
The secondary evidence found by illegally obtained evidence shall not be used in principle(called as "rule of the fruit from poisonous tree“). the Supreme Court has applied the principle of exclusion also to the secondary evidence, but affirmed exceptionally its admissibility, when exclusion of secondary evidence can be evaluated as a result against realization of justice in criminal justice through harmonization between principle of a fair trial and un discovery of truth in crimial case.
In addition, illegal obtained evidence shall not be used, although the accused or his lawyer consent to its admissibility, because illegally obtained evidence indifferent to abandonment of confrontation right can not be a target of the consent from the first.

참고자료

· 없음