북한 형사소송법상 증거법의 내용과 특징

Given a formal appearance of North Korean Criminal procedure law, especially evidence law, It looks close to that of a constitutional state's counterpart. for instance, rule of scientific investigation and trial by evidence (article 29-1, article 31), collection of evidence by legal procedures (article 29-2), confession exclusion rule (article 37-1), confession supplement rule (article 37-2) and rule of free evaluation of evidence (article 36). In formal aspects, there are also many rules not much lacking in the form of law, compared to the South Korean criminal procedure law. for example, rule about collection and seizure of evidence. registration of evidence, drawing up of a protocol, keeping the evidence, review and assessment of evidence, participation during seizure and search, transfer and handing of evidence. Furthermore, article 33 shows a distinct feature of North Korean Criminal procedure law which can't be found in South Korean counterparts. It says that collection of evidence should be firmly based on the force and wisdom of awaken people. However, scrutinizing the actual contents in more detail, we can find out that North Korean evidence law includes some limitations which are difficult for us to accept from the viewpoint of principle of a law abiding country's criminal procedure law. Here are the typical examples. First, in order to determine whether the suspect is guilty or not, North korean evidence law still focuses on ‘class point of view’ or ‘the best way to a revolution’. as the most important appraisal guidelines, although its face represents trial by scientific evidence. Second, the evaluation of statement’s credibility is mainly based on political environment, class position, level of consciousness and loyalty to a party of person making a statement. Third, in the event that statement about denials of the charges proves false, the suspect should prove himself to be not guilty (article 37-3). This article is not adequate enough to be admitted to the legal system of a law-governed country because it makes the country become immune from the responsibility of proof and actually forces a suspect to make a confession. Fourth, the fundamental principles of a constitutional state’s criminal procedure law - the presumption of innocence, in dubio pro reo, the exclusive rule of hearsay - are excluded in North Korean evidence law, because such principles are considered as the deception and hypocrisy that capitalistic and bourgeois criminal procedure law has. Finally, it has another problem that a high value is put on the policy of the party and the working class, not the principles of free evaluation of evidence, during the evidence evaluation. In conclusion, it is difficult for us to believe that in North Korea, the investigation and trial for finding of substantial truth and procedural justice are running to protect human rights and the defence rights, because the evidence part of the North Korean criminal procedure law is still in the beginning stage.