증거능력 없는 피의자신문조서의 탄핵증거로의 사용

Abstract

The amended Criminal Procedure Act, in order to prevent the criminalization of trial-centeredness and further guarantee the defendant’s right to defense, requires that the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor, like the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the police, cannot be admissible as long as there is a denial of the contents of the accused. stipulated. However, the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that, according to the hearsay rule, evidence without admissibility can still be used as evidence for impeachment. After all, even if the amended Criminal Procedure Act strictly stipulates the requirements for admitting admissibility of interrogation of a suspect prepared by a prosecutor, it cannot be prevented from appearing in court as evidence of impeachment, according to the provision of impeachment evidence. These results clearly run counter to the purpose of the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act. The provision of impeachment evidence in the Criminal Procedure Act serves as a rule that maintains the existing practice in which criminal proceedings rely on protocols prepared by investigative agencies rather than statements in court, thereby shaping trial-centeredness. The investigative agency is concentrating on finding a way to bring the suspect interrogation report written by the prosecutor against the purpose of the amended Criminal Procedure Act to the court in the form of impeachment evidence by using the articles of impeachment evidence of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office is in the courtroom of the accused. The contents of using the suspect interrogation report prepared by the prosecutor as impeachment evidence for the denial of the denial are officially distributed as a response manual for the amended Criminal Procedure Act. The appearance of evidence that is not recognized as admissible in court leads to the result that the formation of the judge’s testimony is significantly affected by the evidence without admissibility, which shrinks trial-centeredism and leads to biased investigation of confession by the investigative agency. There is a risk of encouraging In the reality where the assistance of a lawyer is very insufficient in the investigation stage, if the confession made in the investigation stage without the help of a lawyer puts the accused in an irreversible disadvantaged position, it is difficult to see that the constitutional right to receive the assistance of a lawyer is sufficiently guaranteed. Allowing evidence without admissibility to appear in court indefinitely by the hearsay rule also raises the problem of breaking down the hearsay rule. According to the purpose of the amended Criminal Procedure Act, rather than relying on the confession of the accused, even if the accused denies it in court, the investigative practice should be improved in the direction of securing sufficient evidence to prove the charges. As a premise, it is necessary to prevent prosecutors from easily presenting the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the investigative agency in court, and the impeachment evidence clause of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is being abused as a basis for investigation practice contrary to the purpose of the amended Criminal Procedure Act. needs to be improved.