수사상 영상녹화물의 증거활용에 대한 비판적 검토

In the 2007, Criminal Procedure Code was amended on a large scale. But the 2007 revision on the Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Code was dissatisfied. Because the National Assembly decided to maintain the evidentiary power of the prosecutors' interrogation dossiers in this revision. The result was that the revised Criminal Procedure Code failed to overcome the vice by dossiers. To make matters worse, the importation of interrogation videotaping system give rise to great confusion in a controversy on admissibility of the prosecutors' interrogation dossiers. Originally the object of interrogation videotaping shall be to guarantee the circumstantial trustworthiness. But the current discussion on interrogation videotapes went diverge from the original object of interrogation videotaping. In particular, all that matters is the prosecution's intention to use interrogation videotapes not as facts in the support of “interrogation circumstances" in which a suspect had given a statement but as evidences in the support of "contents itself" of a suspect's statement. However prosecution's insistence regarding the evidential power of the videotapes recorded during interrogation is contradictory to the “Excluding Rule of Hearsay". Because the intrinsic attribute of interrogation videotapes is a hearsay evidence to the last. Consequently it is desirable that the videotapes may be used only as the supporting evidence to refresh the memory of a suspect or a witness and as when it is necessary to support the circumstantial legality during interrogation, (for example, the absence of the torture and harsh treatment and the observance of Miranda rule etc.)