본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

과학적 증거방법에 대한 대법원 판결의 최근 동향

The recent trend of Korean Supreme Court Decisions about Scientific Evidence

심희기
한국비교형사법학회 (Korean Association Of Comparative Criminal Law)|2011.12|비교형사법연구 (Korean Journal of Comparative Criminal Law)|제13권 제2호|pp. 281-302|DOI 10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.2.013

0

조회

0

다운로드

13

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

과학적 추론신뢰성 기준관련성 기준과학적‧기술적 증거도버트 판결a scientifictechnical evidencea scientific methodthe reliability testthe relevancy testDaubert decision
주제분류법학

초록

Until 2006, the judicial attitude of ‘Korean Supreme Court’ (hereafter ‘KSC’) about scientific evidence had not been so positive or clear. However, the attitude of KSC about it has been changing drastically since 2007. There had been appeared 4 KSC decisions which mentioned about scientific evidence after 2007. SectionⅠand Section Ⅱ describes and contrasts overall trend of KSC decisions about a scientific evidence before and after the year of 2007. The keyword of 4 KSC decisions which mentioned about scientific evidence is ‘scientific method’. I guess the 4 KSC decisions were influenced heavily from the U.S. Daubert decision in the year of 1993. Hence, Section Ⅲ summarizes U.S. Daubert decision and ensuing U.S. decisions with regard to 4 KSC decisions. Then, what is the concrete meaning of scientific method in the context of Korean criminal justice? KSC decision in the year of 2011 provides a good example which can be analyzed deeply. On the other hand, it is also true that a substantial number of miscarriages of justice involved scientific fraud or junk science. Hence section Ⅴ explains and suggests that the appropriate measures should be taken to evade false testimony and false convictions. The regulation of DNA profiling, which has developed gradually over the last twenty years globally, can serve as a model for other laboratory units. The accreditation of crime laboratories, the certification of examiners, and the standardization and promulgation of written protocols for each technique would go a long way in professionalizing forensic science. In addition, quality assurance programs, including proficiency testing and external audits, should be mandated. In section Ⅵ, I conclude that the recent trend of KSC decisions about a scientific evidence is basically sound one because of the relatively drastic movement of Korean version of criminal justice revolution from the early 1990’s through 2000’s.

Abstract

Until 2006, the judicial attitude of ‘Korean Supreme Court’ (hereafter ‘KSC’) about scientific evidence had not been so positive or clear. However, the attitude of KSC about it has been changing drastically since 2007. There had been appeared 4 KSC decisions which mentioned about scientific evidence after 2007. SectionⅠand Section Ⅱ describes and contrasts overall trend of KSC decisions about a scientific evidence before and after the year of 2007. The keyword of 4 KSC decisions which mentioned about scientific evidence is ‘scientific method’. I guess the 4 KSC decisions were influenced heavily from the U.S. Daubert decision in the year of 1993. Hence, Section Ⅲ summarizes U.S. Daubert decision and ensuing U.S. decisions with regard to 4 KSC decisions. Then, what is the concrete meaning of scientific method in the context of Korean criminal justice? KSC decision in the year of 2011 provides a good example which can be analyzed deeply. On the other hand, it is also true that a substantial number of miscarriages of justice involved scientific fraud or junk science. Hence section Ⅴ explains and suggests that the appropriate measures should be taken to evade false testimony and false convictions. The regulation of DNA profiling, which has developed gradually over the last twenty years globally, can serve as a model for other laboratory units. The accreditation of crime laboratories, the certification of examiners, and the standardization and promulgation of written protocols for each technique would go a long way in professionalizing forensic science. In addition, quality assurance programs, including proficiency testing and external audits, should be mandated. In section Ⅵ, I conclude that the recent trend of KSC decisions about a scientific evidence is basically sound one because of the relatively drastic movement of Korean version of criminal justice revolution from the early 1990’s through 2000’s.

참고문헌 (31)

  1. "감정인(형사소송법 제169조-179조의2)", ~
  2. 형사절차상 유전자정보의 관리 및 활용방안, "황만성", 한국형사정책연구원, 120~126 (2006)
  3. "광주고등법원 제주부 1997.12.5. 선고 97노58 판결", ~
  4. 심희기, "유전자감정의 증거능력과 증명력", 형사재판의 제문제, 3, pp.314~333 (2000)
  5. "미국 연방증거규칙 702조와 금호 타이어(kumho tire) 판결", ~
  6. "1992년 자살방조피고사건 판결(필적감정) 대법원 1992.07.24. 선고 92 도 1148 판결", ~
  7. "1994년 강도살인피고사건 판결(필적감정) 대법원 1994.0.13. 선고 94도1335 판결", ~
  8. 신동운, "자백의 신빙성과 거짓말탐지기 검사결과의 증거능력(대법원 1983.9.13. 선고 83도712 판결), In 法과 正義 : 俓史 李會昌先生華甲紀念論文集 李會昌 大法官判決의 硏究", pp.242~ (1995), 박영사
  9. "대법원 1987.7.21. 선고 87도968 판결", ~
  10. 송혜정, "과학적 증거와 전문가 증언, 법관의 의사결정: 이론과 실무", pp.780~781 (2010), 사법발전재단
  11. Joshua Dressler, "Encyclopedia of Crime & Justice(2nd Ed), In V.4, ‘scientific evidence’", Macmillan Reference USA
  12. 박광배, "과학적 증거의 법적 타당성", 형사정책연구, (봄)통권 : 29, pp.79~107 (1997)
  13. "대법원 1994. 12. 9. 선고 94도1680 판결", ~
  14. "Encyclopedia", 1377~1380
  15. David L. Faigman, "Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, V.1(Chapter 1 Admissibility of Scientific Evidence)" (2010)
  16. "대법원 2005. 5. 26. 선고 2005도130 판결", ~
  17. 권창국, "犯罪搜査 및 形事公判에서 거짓말탐지기 活用과 관련한 問題點의 再考察", 인권과 정의, (341), pp.119~141 (2005), 대한변호사협회
  18. "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579, 590", ~ (1993)
  19. "As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1", ~ (2000)
  20. "‘General Electric Co. v. Joiner’ 522 U.S. 136 (1997) 판결", ~ (1997)
  21. "‘Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael’ , 118 S. Ct. 2339", ~ (1998)
  22. "rev’d, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999) 판결", ~ (1999)
  23. Federal Judicial Center, "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Second Edition)", pp.1~638 (2000)
  24. Federal Judicial Center, "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence(Third Edition)", pp.1~1016 (2011)
  25. David Goodstein, "How Science Works, III. Theories of Science, A. Francis Bacon’s Scientific Method[Reference Manual", 39~ (2011)
  26. David Goodstein, "How Science Works, B. Karl Popper’s Falsification Theory[Reference Manual", 40~ (2011)
  27. "Reference Manual", ~ (2000)
  28. MARGARET A. BERGER, "The Admissibility of Expert Testimony’, B. Conflating Admissibility with Sufficiency", Reference Manual, 20~ (2011)
  29. Paul C. Giannelli, "WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS AND FORENSIC SCIENCE: THE NEED TO REGULATE CRIME LABS", North Carolina Law Review, pp.165~234 (2007)
  30. 심희기, "국립과학수사연구소의 현황과 과제", 법학연구, 18(4), pp.31~67 (2008), 법학연구원
  31. "대법원 1999. 1. 26. 선고 98도3732 판결", ~

관련 논문AI추천

형사재판상 과학적 증거의 기준과 국내 발전방향 -최근 미국에서의 과학적 증거의 개혁논의를 중심으로-이성기, 이응혁한국형사정책학회 · 형사정책2011 · 제23권 제1호과학적 증거의 판단기준과 적용과정에 대한 이해 - 최근 논란이 된 사례들을 중심으로 -김면기한국형사정책학회 · 형사정책2018 · 제30권 제3호'과학적 증거'의 증거법적 평가이정봉한국형사판례연구회 · 형사판례연구2013 · 제21권 형사절차상 과학증거 활용과 관련한 시각의 전환 - 미국의 과학증거의 증거능력 및 증명력에 대한 논쟁을 중심으로 -강우예중앙법학회 · 중앙법학2012 · 제14권 제1호과학증거의 자유심증주의 제한에 대한 비판적 고찰강우예한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2013 · 제25권 제1호주요 선진국 법과학 분야의 최신 동향 및 시사점김면기, 유승진법학연구원 · 법학논총2019 · 제36권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (37건)

해석근거로서의 ‘법질서의 통일성’과 ‘형법의 독자성’변종필pp. 1-18과실범의 “정상의 주의”의 전제조건과 형법의 일반원칙김성돈pp. 19-40사형제도에 관한 법철학적인 고찰손미숙pp. 41-62강간죄 등 성폭력범죄의 구성요건에 대한 재검토 - 개정 아동청소년성보호법 및 성폭력특례법에 대한 비판적 검토와 함께 -김혜정pp. 63-87소비자 불매운동의 정당성 - 헌법적 허용한계와 형법적 규제의 타당성-우희숙pp. 89-111
원문 보기