피의자신문조서와 형사소송법 제314조의 관계에 대한 소고

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is twofold: (1) to examine whether the interrogation report about the accused written by the defendant’s prosecutor or law-enforcement officers can take its admissibility as an evidence based on Article 314 and (2) whether the interrogation report written by the prosecutor of the accomplice who is not indicted can be used an evidence for the indicted defendant. As an attempt to surmount the issue, this study focuses on the problem of the fictitious assent of admissibility in the absent trial and on the problem of Article 312 Clause 1 and Clause 3, Clause 4, Clause 4 and Clause 3, which are the necessary conditions of admissibility as an evidence for another accomplice’s defendant with the accomplice’s judicial precedents. Since the defendant’s interrogation report written by the prosecutor cannot be used as an evidence based on Article 314, I argue that the accomplice’s interrogation report written by the prosecutor cannot be used as an evidence for the defendant of other accomplice based on Article 314. An close examination also reveals that the problem of the issue of the admissibility as an evidence in the absent trial is fundamentally similar to that of the interrogation report on the accused based on Article 314. To expedite the trial and impose a sanction against the defendant’s absence or denial of statement in trial, it is not correct to give the disadvantage at fact examination.