개정 형사소송법상 수사기관이 작성한 공범자의 피의자신문조서의 증거능력 - 증거능력을 인정하기 위한 적용법조를 중심으로 -

Abstract

A majority of the academic community and the Supreme Court treat the suspect’s interrogation report written by a judicial police officer and the suspect’s interrogation report of an accomplice written by a judicial police officer as legally the same. These views state that the subject who must acknowledge the content is the defendant on trial. However, these views do not conform at all to the meaning of the wording of article 312 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Considering the dictionary meaning of “He”, the defendant on trial, not the accomplice himself, cannot be the defendant who was the a suspect in the suspect’s interrogation of the accomplice drawn up by a judicial police officer. The view that the subject who is required to acknowledge the content is an accomplice is not valid in that the regulations on the requirements of admissibility of evidence vary depending on the method of prosecution or whether the prosecutor has indicted the suspect or not, it is inconsistent in interpretation, and the confrontation right is not guaranteed. Considering these various problems arising from the application of article 312 (3) and the meaning of the wording of articles 312 (3), article 312 (4) should apply to the suspect’s interrogation report of the accomplice drawn up by a judicial police officer. No matter how accomplices shared the crime with the defendants, my conclusion is an interpretation exactly in line with the meaning of the sentence of Article 312 (4), because it is clear that accomplices are “not defendants” in the trial of the accused, not the accomplice’s own trial.