탄핵증거의 허용범위와 대상의 확정문제

In criminal proceedings, impeachment evidence is not evidence that acknowledges criminal facts, but evidence to contend with the proof of the statement. In other words, impeachment evidence is a special rule of the professional law stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act, and does not require strict admissibility of evidence, and even professional evidence without admissibility can be used as evidence. The use of impeachment evidence presented in the trial court is to attenuate or enhance the probative power of judges. As is well known, impeachment evidence is a useful system in criminal proceedings as it can effectively guarantee the parties’ right to cross-examine and to form a reasonable opinion of judges on the adoption of evidence. However, in the current system of criminal proceedings, the meaning that impeachment evidence attenuates the power of proof is that most of the actual evidence submitted by prosecutors to prove the existence of criminal facts. In the reality of such criminal proceedings, the value of impeachment evidence can be a means of exercising a very important defense right against the Defendant for the benefit of the Defendant in questionable cases. In criminal proceedings, the purpose of impeachment evidence is to prove the fact that the proof of evidence is attenuated. Therefore, the prosecutor is responsible for proving the defendant’s guilt about the facts charged, and the defendant can submit evidence of the prosecutor’s absence. However, prosecutors should not be allowed to submit unlimited evidence of impeachment because they have superior authority and organizational power compared to the accused. In other words, it is reasonable for the prosecutor to submit only self-contradictory statements as impeachment evidence, and for the Defendant to submit all professional evidence as impeachment evidence without restriction. This is because the defendant’s acquittal corresponds to the impeachment of the prosecutor’s conviction. The provisions of Article 318-2 (evidence to contend for proof) of the current Criminal Procedure Act are special rules of professional law and reflect the legislative purpose of ensuring the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defend as much as possible. Reflecting this legislative purpose, it is desirable to strengthen the guarantee of the defendant’s human rights and defense rights in impeachment evidence, and it will be reasonable as a direction for future-oriented criminal proceedings. For this purpose, it is desirable to apply the principle of substantive truthfulness and appropriate procedures in harmony based on the position of dualism to determine the scope and target of impeachment evidence. Accordingly, in order to ensure the effectiveness of impeachment evidence, it is considered reasonable to establish a proviso clause in Article 318-2 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to allow limited submission of impeachment evidence by prosecutors. For example, following the main clause of Article 318-2 (1), I would like to propose a legislative theory that simply supplements, “However, unlike the Defendant, the prosecutor may submit only self-contradictory statements as evidence.”