학술논문
형사소송법 제312조 제1항 개정에 따른 수사기관의 대응방안 제고
Enhancement of countermeasures by investigative agencies under Article 312 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Enhancement of countermeasures by investigative agencies under Article 312 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Document Type
Article
Author
Source
법과 정책연구 / Journal of Law and Politics research. Jun 30, 2022 22(2):65
Subject
Language
Korean
ISSN
1598-5210
Abstract
2020년 2월 4일 형소법 개정에 의하여 검사가 작성한 피의자신문조서는 피의자였던 피고인 또는 변호인이 공판정에서 그 내용을 인정할 때에 한하여 증거로 할 수 있도록 하였다. 이에 따라 2022년 1월 1일부터는 검사작성 피의자신문조서를 피의자의 유죄인정을 위한 증거로 사용하기 어렵게 되었다. 이에 본 고에서는 검사작성 피의자신문조서의 증거능력에 대한 제312조 제1항의 개정배경과 그 증거능력의 인정에 관한 변천 과정을 살펴보고, 증거능력 인정요건의 개정에 따른 문제점 및 이에 따른 수사기관의 대응방안을 제시하였다. 이번 형소법 개정으로 물적 증거확보가 되지 않은 상태에서는 피고인의 진술증거만으로 범죄사실 입증이 어렵게 되면서 실체적 진실발견에 장애가 될 수 있고, 특히 피고인이 공판장에서 수사단계의 진술을 부인할 경우 재판지연, 거짓말 잔치, 재판의 비웃음 등의 사태가 발생할 수 있고, 이로 인해 피해자들의 분노와 사법에 대한 불신이 초래될 수 있는 등의 우려가 제기되고 있다. 따라서 사법정의의 실현을 위하여 형소법 개정에 따른 보완책이 강구될 것이 요구된다. 그 대책으로 다음의 방안을 제시하였다. (ⅰ) 조사자 증언제도의 적극 활용, (ⅱ) 물적증거확보를 위한 수사역량 강화, (ⅲ) 조사과정을 촬영한 영상녹화물의 증거 능력 인정
On February 4, 2020, the suspect interrogation report prepared by the prosecutor by the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act was allowed to be used as evidence only when the defendant or lawyer who was the suspect admitted the contents in the trial. Accordingly, from January 1, 2022, it became difficult to use the suspect interrogation report prepared by the prosecutor as evidence for the conviction of the suspect. Therefore, this paper examined the background of Article 312 (1) on the admissibility of evidence prepared by the prosecutor and the process of change in the recognition of the admissibility of evidence, and suggested problems related to the revision of the requirements for recognition of evidence and countermeasures of investigative agencies. With the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is difficult to prove the criminal facts only with the evidence of the defendant's statement, which could be an obstacle to the discovery of substantive truth. In particular, if the Defendant denies the statement of the investigation stage at the trial court, there may be a delay in the trial, a lie feast, and a ridicule of the trial. As a result, concerns have been raised, such as the anger of the victims and distrust of the judicial law. Therefore, in order to realize judicial justice, it is required to devise supplementary measures following the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act. As a countermeasure, the following measures were proposed. (i) actively utilizing the investigator's testimony system, (ⅱ) strengthening investigative capabilities to secure physical evidence, and (ⅲ) recognizing the evidence capabilities of video recordings that filmed the investigation process.
On February 4, 2020, the suspect interrogation report prepared by the prosecutor by the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act was allowed to be used as evidence only when the defendant or lawyer who was the suspect admitted the contents in the trial. Accordingly, from January 1, 2022, it became difficult to use the suspect interrogation report prepared by the prosecutor as evidence for the conviction of the suspect. Therefore, this paper examined the background of Article 312 (1) on the admissibility of evidence prepared by the prosecutor and the process of change in the recognition of the admissibility of evidence, and suggested problems related to the revision of the requirements for recognition of evidence and countermeasures of investigative agencies. With the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is difficult to prove the criminal facts only with the evidence of the defendant's statement, which could be an obstacle to the discovery of substantive truth. In particular, if the Defendant denies the statement of the investigation stage at the trial court, there may be a delay in the trial, a lie feast, and a ridicule of the trial. As a result, concerns have been raised, such as the anger of the victims and distrust of the judicial law. Therefore, in order to realize judicial justice, it is required to devise supplementary measures following the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act. As a countermeasure, the following measures were proposed. (i) actively utilizing the investigator's testimony system, (ⅱ) strengthening investigative capabilities to secure physical evidence, and (ⅲ) recognizing the evidence capabilities of video recordings that filmed the investigation process.