검사작성 피의자신문 영상녹화물에 대한 비판적 검토

Abstract

The amendment of Article 312 of Criminal Procedure Act proposed by the Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform and the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the Korean National Assembly contains the limitation on the admissibility of interrogatory, on par with the previous Supreme Court finding. It also eliminates that admissibility of the video recording of interrogation as prosecutory evidence or impeachment. Yet, the Act contains some elements that contradict the purport of amendment. It allows that video recording can be used to prove interrogatory’s substantial authenticity. The failure to prescribe the presence of defense counsel under reliable condition while videotaping interrogation is another setback. That the prosecutory authorities still can videotape interrogation with notice to the suspect and without his or her approval is also subject to controversy. The intent of videotaping interrogation is to protect the rights of the suspect, so it should be 1) allowed only with the suspect’s approval, or 2) if it is allowed with notice only, then it should be stopped as soon as the suspect refuses to be videotaped or 3) when the suspect requests withdrawal or exerts the right of deniability. The bill could be complemented with such stipulations as 4) a specification of the cases in which interrogation can be videotaped, 5) a rule that the entire interrogation should be taped, not a targeted moment or period of time, and 6) videotaping being granted at the request of the suspect or defense counsel.