형사소송법 제318조의2(탄핵증거)의 해석에 대한 小考

The current provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code Article 318 Section 2 implies not a few problems. Unclear provisions has led to excessive conflict theory. Misunderstanding of the exceptions as exceptions to the hearsay evidence has been up to. In that sense, my interpretation of Article 318 Section 2 unlike the usual understanding is analyzed. I tried to reduce difficulty in interpretation caused by uncertainty of provisions a little bit. Nevertheless, in the operation of the impeachment evidence analysis must be based on the current provisions. Beyond the limits of semantics, the interpretation is not permissible to go. About the subject of impeachment, the defendant’s statement should be included. And when it is secondary fact of evidence, hearsay evidence can also be used as impeachment evidence. In addition, the for recovery evidence should be allowed as impeachment evidence. But now the efforts with the interpretation of Article 318 Section 2 regulations has reached a limit to solve the problems coming from obscurity of provisions. After all the amendment of provisions of the impeachment evidence would say that a belated challenge. Because it was not amended the two times only after enacted. Impeachment evidence can play an important role by verifying and checking the testimony of witnesses in the principle of trial examination. Because it can be the medium for the accused’s right of defense and the fairness of the judicial guarantees. Now too much opinion confrontation bound to the past Criminal Procedure Code and underestimate of the impeachment evidence should be modified.