수사기관이 작성한 검증조서의 적용범위와 증거능력 인정요건
Application Range of a Protocol of On-The-Spot Inspection Drafted by an Investigative Agency and Recognition Requirement of Admissibility of Evidence
신이철(원광디지털대학교)
15권 3호, 307~337쪽
초록
형사소송에서 사실의 인정은 증거에 의해야 하는데(제307조 제1항), 전문증거의 경우 부동의 한다면 전문법칙의 예외규정의 요건을 갖추어야 비로소 증거로 사용이 가능하게 된다. 수사기관의 검증조서도 형사소송법상 제312조 제6항의 적법한 절차와 방식에 따라 작성되어야 하며 작성자에 의해 성립의 진정이 증명되어야 한다는 요건을 엄격하게 충족해야 한다. 먼저 제312조 제6항의 적용범위에 있어서 승낙검증 결과나 실황조사서 등의 정확성이 실질적으로 검증조서와 다르지 않아 검증조서의 규정을 적용할 수 있을 것으로 본다. 그리고 검증조서는 전문법칙과의 관계에서 조서작성의 절차와 방식이 적법해야 하지만, 위법수집증거배제법칙(제308조의2)과는 엄격히 구분되어야 한다. 또한 여기서 ‘성립의 진정’이란 실질적 진정성립을 의미한다. 중요한 것은 검증조서에 기재된 참여인의 진술인데, 이는 검증결과 자체가 아니므로 증거능력도 달리 판단함이 타당하다. 그리고 검증과정에서 충실한 조사를 위해서는 검증현장에서 현장상황과 연관하여 피의자 등 관계인의 진술은 검증조서에 대한 신빙성을 높일 수도 있을 것이기 때문에 일괄하여 위법하다고 단정하기는 어렵다. 이번 기회에 탈법적인 가능성이 있는 실황조사에 대한 보다 분명한 법적 근거를 마련해 볼 필요가 있다고 생각된다.
Abstract
The protocol of on-the-spot inspection drafted by an investigative agency should be drawn up according to the legal procedure and method pursuant to Article 312, Paragraph 6, the Criminal Procedure Law, and meet the requirement that its authenticity of formation should be proved by the drawer. Therefore in interpreting the requirement of an exceptional provision, it will be an exception to require the formation of firm belief by a original evidence, so that must be prudently interpreted. At first, in respect with the application range of Article 312, Paragraph 6, even if investigation means that as forced disposition, the provision of a protocol of on-the-spot inspection is thought to be applied provided that accuracy such as the result of accepted inspection and a written investigation of actual status is not substantially different from the protocol of on-the-spot inspection. And a protocol of on-the-spot inspection is legal in its preparation procedure and method in relation with hearsay rule, but it should be strictly distinguished from the rule of illegal collection evidence exclusion(Article 308-2). Also ‘the authenticity of formation’ means actual formation of authenticity, which indicates that the preparer accepts through verification that perceived result and entered content on the record is consistent. Crucial thing is the statement of the participant listed at the protocol of on-the-spot inspection, which is inly trhe statement in the presence of the investigative agency, not the verification result itself, and verification result and the statement entered at the record are different in their character, so admissibility of evidence is valid to judge as different, but generally, it will not have the stater's signature, seal, joint seal etc., so it will not be easy to be granted its admissibility of evidence. And sufficient evidence in verification process will need not a few hearing of statements of the parties concerned such as a suspect, so assuming that the requirement of due process is sternly dealt with, such investigation practice as entering the statement of the participant at a protocol of on-the-spot inspection will be difficult to conclude that it is illegal collectively. In the light of the reality that a written record of actual status is widely used at practice, and accepted as valid evidence, it will be necessary to arrange for more definite legal basis.
- 발행기관:
- 법학연구소
- 분류:
- 법학