DNA감식에서 증거물 관리의 연속성

DNA profiling is evaluated as evidence with high scientific validity and objectivity in establishing criminal facts, and its importance continues to expand in modern criminal justice. The results of DNA profiling have a very high possibility of individual identification and, when combined with other circumstantial evidence, function as evidence that has a decisive influence on fact-finding. However, despite the scientific accuracy of DNA profiling, whether the identity of the evidence—which is the premise of the analysis—was maintained in a lawful and reliable manner throughout the entire process of collection, storage, transportation, and analysis is a fundamental issue that determines whether the analysis result can be established as evidence. Nevertheless, conventional precedents and theories have mainly identified defects in Chain of Custody as issues of the credibility or probative value of the analysis results, showing a tendency not to deny the admissibility itself even if a certain degree of doubt exists regarding identity. This approach does not sufficiently reflect the structural particularities of DNA profiling evidence. Once contamination, mixing, or substitution occurs, it is virtually impossible to fully verify or recover DNA information post-hoc. Furthermore, as analysis results possess an appearance of scientific authority, they entail the risk of exerting excessive influence on the judge's formation of free evaluation of evidence. Based on this awareness, this paper presents an interpretative theory that the lack of Chain of Custody during DNA profiling should not merely be a ground for reducing probative value, but should, in principle, be understood as a ground for excluding admissibility. This is not a matter of excessively extending the application of the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence under Article 308-2 of the 「Criminal Procedure Act」, but a logical and systematic consequence that admissibility cannot be recognized for an object whose identity as evidence has not been proven from the beginning. In other words, DNA profiling results derived from evidence whose identity has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be evaluated as lacking the prerequisites for being established as evidence under the 「Criminal Procedure Act」. To this end, this paper theoretically organizes the concepts of Chain of Custody and identity of evidence management. It then analyzes the characteristics and inherent risks of DNA profiling evidence , followed by a comparative review of precedents and practices in South Korea, the United States, and Japan. As a result, it was confirmed that U.S. federal courts are moving toward presenting stricter standards regarding the issue of Chain of Custody. Similarly, Japan strongly recognizes the importance of Chain of Custody, triggered by cases of misjudgment and manipulation related to DNA profiling. Based on this analysis, this paper proposes the conclusion that Chain of Custody during DNA analysis must be identified as an independent requirement for admissibility, and if identity is lacking, the court must exclude the analysis results at the stage of determining admissibility. This interpretation serves as a crucial normative standard that enhances the reliability of scientific investigation while substantially guaranteeing the defendant's right to defense and the right to a fair trial.