수사보고서의 법적 성격과 증거능력 - ‘상해부위에 관한 수사보고서’와 ‘문답형식의 수사보고서’ 판결을 중심으로 -

Regarding exceptions to the hearsay rule, the Korean Criminal Procedure Act imposes strict admissibility requirements under Article 312 for interrogation records prepared by investigative agencies in a question-and-answer format. In contrast, statements prepared by individuals or investigative agencies are subject to the relatively relaxed standards set forth in Article 313(1). Recently, there have been rulings that strictly apply the hearsay rule regarding investigative reports. One such decision held that a police report describing injuries occurred during a physical altercation between defendants is not admissible because it’s not a document of Article 312(6) or 313(1). Another decision denied the admissibility of an investigative report that documented a telephone conversation with a witness in a question-and-answer format, citing the absence of the witness’s signature or seal. Some scholars contend that these rulings should be interpreted broadly to encompass all eyewitness statements by investigative personnel and all investigative reports that record third-party statements. However, investigation reports prepared by investigative agencies should be classified as written statements under Article 313(1). Judicial efforts to prevent abuse of such reports must be understood as case-specific rather than indicative of a general principle. Furthermore, the mere inclusion of third-party statements in an investigative report does not convert it into so called ‘statement-recording document’ of Article 313(1). This paper argues that the Supreme Court’s established jurisprudence on double hearsay documents already provides sufficient safeguards against the improper use of investigative reports, without resorting to overly expansive interpretations.