형사절차상 재정법원 조서의 합리적 증거능력 규제 - 특히 피의자신문조서를 중심으로 -

An appeal request improper with respect to the disposition not institute a public prosecution action, which is filed when previous investigation is deemed insufficient and unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the current Criminal Prosecution Act allows the court to ‘investigate evidence’ when needed with respect to the determination of an appeal filing case, and the appeal procedure is regulated to ‘adhere to the appeal procedure’ (Article 262(2)). Accordingly, pursuant to the current Criminal Prosecution Act, the appeal court shall not restrict already filed evidence with respect to the admissibility of evidence, but collect new evidence to permit the admissibility of evidence - suspects may also be interrogated. The problem is the rational method providing the suspect’s interrogation report as admissibility of evidence to the defendant during the hearing. Although there are conflicting opinions in this regard, the admissibility of evidence is given provided that the exceptional condition is satisfied by applying Article 313(1) of the Criminal Prosecution Act, which strictly deems the report as a ‘document drafting the defendant’s statement’. However, if such condition is unsatisfied, it is believed that even the admissibility of evidence is improper pursuant to the professional rule (Article 310(ii)) of the exclusive rule of hearsay. Such theoretical composition prevents the framework of the exclusive rule of hearsay and is deemed to greatly contribute to guaranteeing the defense of the defendant.