단 보: 혈흔형태분석의 법적 증명력 강화방안: 판례분석과 국제표준비교를 중심으로

Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) is a crucial forensic technique for reconstructing crime scenes in homicide cases where direct evidence is limited. However, concerns regarding its probative value in court persist due to subjective interpretation and lack of standardization. This study aims to evaluate the probative value of BPA through case law analysis and propose standardization measures by comparing domestic practices with international standards. Four criminal cases (2019~2024) where BPA results served as decisive evidence were analyzed. The domestic BPA system was compared with International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts (IABPA) and Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) standards. In all four cases, BPA successfully refuted defendants’ claims through scientific analysis. Case 1 used cast-off patterns to contradict an accidental falling claim, Case 2 proved evidence tampering through luminol testing, Case 3 revealed staged suicide through the absence of drip patterns, and Case 4 established murder intent through impact spatter analysis. Courts emphasized scientific methodology adherence, reconstruction experiments, and consistency with other evidence. However, significant gaps exist compared to international standards: only two agencies provide basic training, three regions produced no BPA reports in the past three years, and systematic blind cross-verification is absent. Four key improvements are necessary: IABPA-compliant 40-hour nationwide standardized education, BPA laboratory construction in all provincial police agencies, standard operating procedures with blind cross-verification systems, and strengthened academic collaboration. These measures will enhance BPA's objectivity and reliability, ultimately contributing to criminal justice fairness.