전문증거 증거능력 인정요건의 변화와이로 인한 새로운 문제에 대한 검토: 형사소송법 제313조의 개정을 중심으로

Amendment of Paragraph 2, Article 313 of Criminal Procedure Act brings a problem that whether it is possible to seize material that seems to be directly related to criminal fact for the purpose of 'proving authenticity only' along with relevance requirements provided in Article 215. Materials for proving authenticity have status as supplementary evidence. In order for relevance requirements to be met, at the time of seizure ① elements required for authenticity through evidence only should be specified ② information that is presented should be one which is used to prove authenticity frequently based on experience. Such viewpoint may bring about concern that scope of seizure may be expanded but the concern can be solved by applying strict standard such as absence of reasonable doubt of establishment of authenticity. New warrant practice requires that investigative agency should destroy irrelevant information in other words copy after seizure and search finish which raises a problem that whether it is possible to search and seize a copy again to secure proof of authenticity after execution of warrant finishes. It is advisable that investigative agency should not search a copy though a copy is in the possession of investigative agency at the time when execution of warrant finishes completely after issuing seizure list. It is desirable that investigative agency should be responsible for burden which is caused by negligence of check for evidence in execution of warrant.