사인이 수집한 증거의 증거능력

When a criminal act occurs, the victim must seek revenge on it. That is the human nature. However, the violence of human society gradually increases because the revenge is always carried out at a level far exceeding the level of harm that one is suffering. In order to prevent such harm, the human society has established a punishment system. The punishment of criminal activity was limited to the finishing of the line corresponding to the size of the liability. As a result, the crime rate was significantly lowered, but instead the monopoly of the penalty by the state led to the problem of abuse. In order to solve this problem, the criminal procedure is prescribed and the legal abuse of the penalty is prevented. In Korea, after officially banning torture in 1894, it has been a long time since torture actually disappeared. And finally in 2007, the law of exclusion of illegal collection evidence was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Law. It is true that the law of exclusion of illegal collection evidence is a necessary provision for the guarantee of the basic rights of the people, but the contents are somewhat abstract and there is still controversy in the interpretation. In order to summarize the interpretation of the law of exclusion of illegal collection evidence, we first examine the law of exclusion of illegal collection evidence in the United States and Germany, which had a profound effect on the formation of the Korean criminal procedure law. In the case of Korea, Based on the following. In the United States, the law of exclusion of evidence of illegal collection began with the idea that adopting this as evidence would infringe on the constitutional rights of defendants. Thus, the physical evidence that is illegally collected under the Map-Ohio verdict is automatically (naturally) and without necessarily (compulsory) excluded from its capacity of evidence, without any other reason, and that the rights granted by the Miranda- The fact that the defendant (s) arbitrarily abandoned and expressed his rights in the state of being able to demonstrate evidence of evidence can only be recognized on two central axes. The German law of exclusion of evidence of illegal collection began with legislation prohibiting certain forms of evidence. The first is the Article 97 of the Imperial Criminal Procedure Act, which states that letters that come and go between people who have veto power can not be confiscated. In this case, the public interest in criminal prosecution through the discovery of substantive truth based on the profit sentence and the private interest in protecting the privacy of the suspect were compared with each other. In general, there seems to be a lot of evidence that is prohibited compared to Korea. For example, an anesthetic analysis and a statement using a polygraph exclude evidence. Evidence from recordings of conversations between strangers can not be used as evidence. In the case of evidence that the parties to the conversation secretly record without the other party, the conclusions are different depending on whether they violate the key areas of privacy in accordance with the three-step theory. In the case of Korea, in 2007, when the law for exclusion of illegal collection evidence was enacted, the previous precedent that the evidence was accepted even if the physical evidence was collected illegally was abolished by the ruling of the allies. The evidence of illegal collection evidence is now ruled out in principle. However, even if it is so, the ability of evidence can not be ruled out unconditionally because of formal procedural violations. This is because the importance of the public interest of criminal prosecution through the discovery of substantive truth is still recognized. In light of this, I think it would be appropriate to follow the three-step theory suggested by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in terms of how to judge the evidences of evidential evidence. We used this judgment structure in the case of evidence collected by autographs. Sign collection evidence can be categorized into evidence collected by voluntarily collecting the signatures and evidence collected by the investigating agency. In the case of evidence collected voluntarily by a signatory, it is easy to obtain evidence, even if it is criminal evidence, such as evidence of torture, unless it violates the essential contents of the privacy or the core of the privacy, such as securing evidence by torturing the perpetrator It can not be excluded. If the evidence is collected by the investigating agency, the evidence collection should be based on an arbitrary investigation method that is not subject to warrants, or a warrant should be issued if it is a forcible investigation such as a wiretapping . The general mandatory number is difficult to enforce, but it can be said that the restriction on communication is possible considering the related regulations.