형사소송법 제312조의 개정의 소송이념적 의미와 향후 과제

On January 13, 2020, the 20th National Assembly revised the article 312 of the criminal procedure that would bring about a major change in criminal procedure, along with the revision of regulations that would change the relationship between police and prosecution. The National Assembly has lowered the prosecutor's written protocol to the same level as that of the police. In the meantime, the admissibility of protocol written by a prosecutor was forced to double-check the suspect. It is difficult to deny that this fact was the fundamental reason for ta criminal proceeding structure led by an investigative prosecution organization. Until recently, the Supreme Court was very tolerant of the admissibility of protocol written by a prosecutor. The Constitutional Court decided that Article 312 was not in violation of the Constitution based on that the prosecutor was a quasi-judicial orgarnisation. This decision resulted in further solidification of prosecutor-centered criminal procedure. This revision of Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act can be evaluated as a clear message denying the prosecutor's status as a quasi-judicial organization as well as reducing the need for prosecutors to directly interrogate the suspect in the future. This revision of Article 312 could provide a means to control judges' arbitrary judgments. This revision of Article 312 places great importance on the statements made by the accused in the trial process. Therefore, Article 312 of the revised Criminal Law is of great significance in that it reduces the risk of errors in the statement of the suspect obtained by the investigative agency. Further discussions on the video recording issue and the testimony of the investigator are needed in line with the revision of Article 312.