수사과정에서의 영상녹화제도의 문제점 - 수사기관의 재량에 의한 영상녹화의 타당성 검토 -

The Criminal Procedure Act leaves the video-recording performance to the investigation agencies. Under the Act, if the investigation agencies inform a suspect of the video-recording in advance, the statements made by the suspect can be recorded, but there is no mention of the video-recording by the request of the suspect. Therefore the investigation agencies just can make a decision of video-recording the interrogation process regardless of the suspect's will. In other words, they can record the suspect's statements in the interrogation process even when the suspect rejects it, what is worse, they can refuse the request of video-recording from the suspect. In theses cases, only the statements of the suspect satisfying and advantageous to the investigation agencies can be recorded by a video recording systems. It could be contrary to the aims of the video-recording system that guarantee the suspect's human right and secure the transparent process of the interrogation. For these reasons, it hardly seems fair that the Act vest only the investigation agencies with the authorities to decide the video-recording. Meanwhile, it is also improper that the permissible ranges of the video-recording are settled uniformly according to the statutory punishments, the name of crime and the nature of crime. Because in the case having clear, apparent and objective proofs, the video-recording seems not necessary, whether the clear, apparent and objective proofs can be collected is not decided by the statutory punishments, the name of crime and the nature of crime. Taking the whole circumstances into consideration, I suppose that the permissible ranges should be limited based on the suspect's will(that is, he demands, rejects or agrees on the video-recording of his statements). Thus the video-recording a suspect rejects should not be permitted, the video-recording a suspect demands should be permitted.