사법경찰관 작성 피의자신문조서와 조사경찰관 증언의 증거능력

From the 1954 enactment of Criminal Procedure Act up until now, core requirement of the admissibility of dossiers of suspect interrogation prepared by a police officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘police officer's interrogation dossiers’) is ‘admission of content’ and there is not a sufficient amount of opinions on this matter. The reality is that criminal investigation is mostly conducted at police stations and about half of the police officer's interrogation dossiers, the result of interrogation, are presented as evidence at the trial via the prosecutors' office. But even when a police officer's interrogation dossiers contains a confession, if a defendant admits his/her crime in court, there is no realistic need to use such police officer's interrogation dossiers as evidence, and if the defendant denies his/her crime in court, naturally such defendant would also deny content of the police officer's interrogation dossiers and its admissibility as evidence would be lost and so as long as admission of content remains a requirement for admissibility thereof, police officer's interrogation dossiers has no legal use whatsoever as evidence. Until now, the Supreme Court has held that the fact which an investigating police officer acquires in the suspect interrogation process is not admissible as evidence even if the defendant testifies such fact in court, but the amended Criminal Procedure Act provides that when an investigating police officer testifies in court the fact he/she acquires in the investigation process, provided that 'reliability of the ‘circumstance of original statement' is proven, such fact be admissible as evidence. So, it became much more efficient for a police officer to testify in court than to prepare dossiers of suspect interrogation. Such circumstance runs counter to the requirement that dossiers be prepared after interrogation of suspect and all other devices to secure legality and fairness thereof. From such perspective, this author will provide criticism of position of the current Criminal Procedure Act on the admissibility of police officer's interrogation dossiers and of investigating police officer as evidence and will suggest a desirable direction for amendment thereof. If interrogation of suspect is conducted through legal and fair criminal investigation procedure and the suspect's statements are correctly reflected in the dossiers, such dossiers, whether prosecutor's interrogation dossiers or police officer's interrogation dossiers, should be deemed admissible, be examined in court, and become object of probative power evaluation. Various devices are already in place for a police officer's interrogation of suspect or dossiers preparation process to be legal and fair but there is still something lacking so in order to improve them, this author herein proposed: active introduction of police station-stationed attorneys; cross examination of the investigating police officer; methods to secure objectivity and fairness of the interrogation and the dossiers preparation process, etc. police officer's interrogation dossiers should be granted admissibility through such improvement, presented in court as evidence and, if necessary, the investigating police officer's testimony should also be presented and then the judge just need to decide probative power thereof through rational comparison and review of reliability. Judge's fact-finding in this manner complies with original purposes of principle of trial-centeredness and also with finding of real truth and trial economy.