수사기관이 참고인을 조사하는 과정에서 작성한 영상녹화물의 증거능력

Lately Supreme Court of Korea decided that a video recording drawn up by investigation agency during the investigation process of a person other than the suspect can not be used as independent evidence which directly proves the facts constituting the crime charged, without other act’s provision having conflicting content or any other special circumstance. Supreme Court says that a ‘video recording’ drawn up by investigation agency can be only used to prove actual authentic formation of a protocol and refresh the recollection of a defendant or a person other than the defendant in (revised) Criminal Procedure Act, but a ‘video’ of Art. 30(6) of Act on Special Cases Concerning The Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or Art. 26(6) of Act on The Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse has an independent evidence admissibility. One of the intents of lawmakers was to deny a evidence admissibility of a video recording drawn up by investigation agency. nevertheless the words of (revised) Criminal Procedure Act may be interpreted differently. Supreme Court has ever acknowledged a evidence admissibility of a video recording, and the regulations providing the use of a video recording drawn up by investigation agency in (revised) Criminal Procedure Act can be also understood as illustrative. A regulation concerning a evidence admissibility of a ‘video’ of Art. 30(6) of Act on Special Cases Concerning The Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or Art. 26(6) of Act on The Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse was legislated before the enforcement of (revised) Criminal Procedure Act. Ultimately, the best way to solve the dispute about a evidence admissibility of a video recording drawn up by investigation agency is to provide in express terms whether it is acknowledged or not.