딥페이크 증거와 형사재판 - 미국 연방증거규칙(FRE)의 개정 논의가 주는 시사점을 중심으로 -

This article examines the recent debate on the revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence in the United States and its implications for preparing for the expected flood of deepfake evidence and defenses, starting with a recent lower court ruling regarding the so-called “deepfake evidence” defense. This article examines the implications of the recent debate on the revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence in the United States. Digital evidence, coupled with advances in science and technology, has significantly contributed to enhancing the accuracy of fact-finding in criminal trials. However, in today’s criminal trials, which rely heavily on digital evidence, the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence and the advancement of deepfake technology are paradoxically threatening the proper function and very existence of criminal trials. The widespread adoption of generative AI and the proliferation of deepfakes threaten the foundation of trust in all evidence presented in criminal courts, and furthermore, it calls for a comprehensive reexamination of the existing criminal evidence discipline. Above all, the absence of regulations regarding the authenticity of evidence as a general requirement for admissibility in Korean criminal procedure law, and the fact that the law of evidence presupposes a dual structure of admissibility and probative force, yet regulates both in a single procedure without separating the respective judgment procedures, make responding to deepfakes critically difficult. These structural problems inherent in the current criminal procedure law make it difficult to address this issue solely through positive law provisions and the Supreme Court’s interpretations of them. Therefore, prompt legislative improvements to the current criminal evidence system are necessary to address the growing prevalence of deepfakes in the criminal justice system and to ensure a timely response. The US Federal Rules of Evidence and the recent debate over their revisions offer valuable insights for developing and refining the criminal procedure system necessary to protect and maintain the function of criminal trials from the proliferation of deepfakes.