조사자증언제도의 한계와 효율적 개선방안

This study examines the legislative background and practical implementation of the Investigator Testimony System under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act. It further analyzes the enhanced institutional significance of the system following the 2020 amendment of the Act, with a view to proposing measures for its effective operation. Introduced in 2007 as a supplementary mechanism when a defendant retracts a statement during trial, the system has seen limited practical use due to the stringent condition of trustworthiness, lack of cooperation from investigative agencies, and concerns regarding memory distortion and interpretive bias. The 2020 amendment substantially elevated investigator testimony as virtually the only viable alternative for introducing prior statements, by imposing identical evidentiary requirements on prosecutor-written interrogation records and those by judicial police officers, while abolishing the provision allowing authenticity to be established via video recordings. Through a comparative analysis of analogous systems in the United States, Germany, France, and Japan, this paper identifies implications for systemic reform. It proposes specific institutional improvements, including the clarification of the trustworthiness requirement, reforms to evidentiary hearing procedures, and the supplementary use of written records and video recordings. Ultimately, the study seeks to strike a balance between the principle of court-centered trial and the defendant’s right to cross-examination, while safeguarding the core objective of discovering substantive truth in criminal proceedings.