과학적 증거의 허용성 - 전문가증인의 허용성문제와 관련 쟁점의 검토를 중심으로 -

Currently, the scientific evidence is being mostly appeared in the court as a form of expert testimony. The theoretical basis of an argument that admissibility of the expert testimony should be examined is to prevent unfair supposition and influence by blocking inflow of pseudo-science into the court. In addition, examining admissibility of expert testimony based on the professional research has an incidental purpose in maintaining adjustment of overall jurisdiction and law's authority by making an intellectual level of experts to be maintained in the same level in the related field. Although The Supreme Court Decision never examines admissibility of expert testimony, the attitude of a precedent like this should be corrected. Even if there were many controversies since adaptation of Daubert Standard in 1993, the reason that its standard is being maintained until now is because the Daubert Standard is suggesting a reasonable basis of an argument. Accordingly, as judgement elements for examining admissibility of scientific evidence, it is thought that verification of theories and technology, examination and publication of colleagues, error ratio, existence of control standard, general approval and independence in the lawsuit, etc. can be its standard. Further, when examining admissibility of expert testimony, it should be examined whether it is technology used in verification by independent experts from the suit that is being adapted in the Daubert standard, and it should be thought that the application scope of the admissibility examination has an influence on the natural science domain as well as social science domain. In addition, as the standard like this should be applied for profit of defendant, it can be said that a prosecutor cannot do a formal objection regarding its admissibility in terms of expert testimony that a defendant applies. Allowing only true character's science without admitting pseudo-science in the court is for rationalization of judgement, but the rationalization of judgement cannot be achieved by only non-permission of pseudo-science. In the end, all judges or jurors who judge scientific evidence should have knowledge on scientific evidence, and for this, the plan such as publication of basic materials and periodic training of judges, etc. should be devised, and when performing judgement, judges should actively utilize a professional psychology committee system for examining admissibility of expert testimony.