한국의 형사재판에서 증거조사 절차에 대한 소고

A Study on Evidence Examination Procedure in Korean Criminal Court

공판절차에서 증거조사는 재판부가 범죄사실과 형의 양정에 관한 심증을 얻기 위한 각종의 증거를 조사하여 그 내용을 알아내기 위한 소송행위로서 이에 관한 형사소송법이 2007년 개정 되었다. 2007년 개정으로 그동안의 형식적 증거조사 절차를 실체적 진실발견을 위한 실질적 증거조사 절차로 전환시키는데 성공하였다고 할 수 있다. 2007년 형사소송법의 주된 개정 목적은 참여재판제도의 도입과 공판중심주의 실현을 위함으로써, 관련 절차적 보완의 성격을 가진 법률로 볼 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 개정 취지와 관련된 개정 규정에서는 여러 가지 보완되어야 할 부분이 다수 있다. 본 논문에서는 한국의 형사재판에서의 증거조사절차와 관련된 절차적 문제점을 살펴보고, 개정 입법취지에 적절한 대안을 제시하고자 한다.

In the trial proceedings, the evidence examination procedure was revised in 2007. The amendment purpose of 2007 criminal procedure law can be regarded as a law having the nature of the procedural supplementation by the newly adopted jury trial system and realizing the trial centered state. However, this regulations related to the amendment purpose have a lot to be supplemented. In this paper, I examine procedural problems related to the procedure of the evidence examination in the criminal trial in Korea and want to propose an appropriate alternative for the purpose of the revised legislation. After the initiation of the evidence, the evidence examination is a litigation act in which the court investigates and obtains various evidence to obtain evidence of crime facts and criminal history. Therefore, this evidence examination is strictly proceeded in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law and Supreme Court Rules. What is the problem? If criminal trials have special circumstances, exceptionally, sentence days are scheduled later date. In truth, if most trials are an exception, and the principles are very few, we should consider whether there is a problem in the legislation. evidence examination is one of the criminal justice procedures to realize the heist centered attention. In other words, since the principle of trial-centeredisml can be realized through the procedure of evidence examination, the principle of trial-centeredism is the basic principle of the investigation procedure. It is not necessary that the trial-centeredness is the essence of the criminal trial. If the hegemony is fully realized in the criminal trial, the procedural legitimacy of discovery of substantive truth and human rights will not be solved.