아동증인의 영상녹화 진술 제도와 피고인의 반대신문권 연구 - 캐나다･영국･미국의 영상녹화제도를 중심으로-

This article points out the issues within the current legal system, which restricts the use of video recordings as substantive evidence solely to specific crimes such as sexual offenses and child abuse. It also proposes measures for improvement. An examination of the legal systems in Canada, the UK, and the US reveals that, while there are differences between countries, they generally allow video recordings to be used as substantive evidence for children under 18, while also ensuring the defendant's right to cross-examination. However, they grant judicial discretion to admit such evidence if the reliability of the child's statement is guaranteed under general exceptions to hearsay rules. Additionally, strict standards are imposed on cross-examination methods to minimize harm to the child. Based on a comparative legal analysis, the following suggestions are proposed: The allowance of video-recorded statements of children as substantive evidence, and exceptions to cross-examination, should be comprehensively assessed by the court based on the principles of reliability and necessity. The Criminal Procedure Act should stipulate that video recordings can be used as substantive evidence for statements made by all children under 18. Whether the defendant's opportunity for cross-examination was adequately guaranteed should be determined by the court based on the credibility of the video-recorded statement and the content of the cross-examination in court. The exceptions outlined in Articles 314 and 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act should be expanded to include cases where the original declarant cannot appear due to significant impediments, such as anxiety or fear caused by the suspect or defendant. If a child witness has undergone cross-examination during evidence preservation procedures after video recording, their appearance in court should, in principle, be prohibited. During cross-examination, it should be explicitly ensured that child witnesses cannot see the defendant and that defendants cannot directly question child witnesses. Provisions should also be established to mandate that investigative agencies fulfill explanatory obligations and set guidelines for video recording.