위법수집증거배제 법칙에 관한 미국 판례의 시사점

Article 308.2 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court has also scrapped its former stance on non-verbal evidence and applied the exclusionary rule to all types of evidence, starting with the 2007 unanimous ruling on the Jeju governor case. However, the academic community and the court agree that the scope of the case does not require absolute ban on the use of all evidences collected by investigative agencies that do not comply completely with the procedures set by the law. Meanwhile, it is not enough to provide clear guidance in practice as academic discussions have been divided so far on the basis of principles and exceptions, and the criteria presented by the Supreme Court's case are too comprehensive and abstract. In the case of the U.S., which is the origin of the law on the exclusion of illegal collection and has a profound influence on our criminal procedure law, because the exception is widely recognized in the case and has developed various theories, it is thought that reviewing the U.S. case will greatly help complement the abstract standards of our case. The main requirement for exceptions to be granted in recent U.S. precedents is that good-faith exception doctrine or the attenuation doctrine is applied, such as when the investigation agency is well-intentioned and either willful or gross negligence is not recognized, when the illegality of violations of laws is minor, and when there is a lack of correlation between misconduct and evidence. The proper direction of operation of the exclusionary rule cannot be considered separately from the purpose of the rule. The rule aims to harmonize the people's basic rights protection through compliance with due process of law and revealing the actual truth to eventually realize a just society where all citizens can live as human beings and happily. Therefore, judgement should not be made that is too inclined to comply with the due process of law under the guise of guaranteeing the rights and interests of the accused. This is because compliance with the actual due process of law should ensure not only the defendant but also the human rights of the victims, who are the same people. Therefore, it should be prudent to determine whether the investigative agency act illegally and the evidence he has collected be ruled out, and it is worth referring to the U.S. exception theory. Therefore, I would like to suggest as an important consideration whether the investigative agency is intentional or gross, whether the agency's discretion in determining legality is within reasonable bounds, whether the illegality is slight considering the extent to which the people's basic rights and whether illegal act is relevant to the collection of evidence.