제주지사 사건의 절차적 문제점에 관한 검토

Abstract

The Supreme Court revised the Korea law of criminal suit and prescribed 'illegality collection exclusion of evidence law' in 2 of the 308 group. The Supreme Court changed. The admissibility of evidence of the evidence collected by the investigation in which it violates law is not recognized. Because of accompanying the breach of the fundamental human rights, in order to be according to on the warrant attention, the object legal disposition prescribes. Accordingly our Supreme Court denied the admissibility of evidence of the evidence collected by the procedure of violating law in the event in which we look at. It is encouraging that it denies the admissibility of evidence of the evidence collected by the procedure changing the attitude in which it recognizes the difference of the admissibility of evidence of the statement evidence and ratio statement evidence in a convention in the object legal disposition and in which it violates law. But in this event, it can not help is pointing out if the Supreme Court changes a position that there is the procedural several points. If it is the collection of evidence violated to the warrant attention, it is unable to be appropriate with first to view as the evidence in which it immediately violates law. It is rightly decided even about coming under a seizure, and the proprietary in which it can search without a warrant that there had to be a review Because it was clear to be the point of time of time when the secretary of the governor of Jeju attempts to the destruction of evidence, that should be discussed with second. As to this thing, when being the flagrant delict and seizing the evidence in which an accomplice possesses, a secretary has to inquire the procedural problem about in which the exception of the warrant attention is not recognized. Lastly, our court said to be not only the important crime but it repeats the review about the standards our court looks at. Because, a qualification as the public official is deprived due to the pronouncement of the prison sentence in which it is quite light unlike the dissimilar crime in the case of this law and the proper comparison cannot become the general crime and the that it formally compares thing. In this kind of a reason, the determination of our Supreme Court tries to point out that there is the problem. Theministers secretary is allowed that it confiscates as the flagrant delict of the obstruction of justice through destruction of evidence without a warrant. It says accordingly to be the investigation in which it violates law. This kind of a verdict thinks that there is the procedural problem.