함정수사의 위법성 판단기준의 재검토

Abstract

The subjective theory determine unlawfulness of entrapment mainly based on the hypothesis of causal condition which means that if it were not for a criminal intent of an induced person there would not result any offense or if it were not for an act of inducement of a law enforcement there would not occur any offense. Following the subjective theory, unlawfulness of investigative techniques that relies on inducement and strategem can be determined by a subjective state or a predisposition of a induced person which is fully undisclosed to a law enforcement. In addition, it is problematic for a state to do a random virtue testing in terms of liberty of a induced person. In fact, the subjective theory may open the wide leeway to use evidence of reputation and character which is normally concealed but possibly submitted to prove culpability of a induced person. In other words, the subjective theory can provide a cause to persistently find out any unlawful one in any occurring and disappearing intent and motive in the mind of a induced person. Although Korean Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court has never changed the subjective viewpoint of entrapment, they has never merely relied on the process of forming criminal intent of a induced person to determine unlawfulness of entrapment. As a matter of fact, analyzing the relevant cases of Korean Supreme Court, it can be seen that unacceptable deception and strategem of law enforcement, rather than instigation of criminal intent, has been a principal issue. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that vagueness and uncertainty can not be totally eradicated by sharpening the objective theory. In short, a reasonable countermeasure can be obtained through the process of evading a risk from flexibility and aiming for a standard as objective as possible. Firstly, a law enforcement who use any deception or strategem to make a effective and efficient investigation, should get a particular suspicion of a crime that was or will be soon committed. Even thought there was a reasonable suspicion, the unacceptable deception, inducement, instigation, incitement, threat, coercion can lead to the determination that the investigative technique is unlawful entrapment. Because in determining unlawfulness of entrapment it cannot be avoidable to consider all the relevant circumstances, a kind of supervision system by a court needs to be introduced. Also, the dismissal of indictment is necessary when unlawful entrapment is found, if the objective theory is considered to prevail.