영상녹화물의 녹화 및 증거 사용방법 (The procedure and admissibility of visual recording with sound of the suspects and the witnesses)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 인하대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학연구 / 10권 / 1호 / 33 ~ 51페이지
· 저자명 : 안성수

초록

과학기술의 발전에 따라 등장한 증거수단으로서 형사소송법이 영상녹화물의 존재를 인정하였으나, 개정안 311조의2를 신설하여 영상녹화물에 대한 본증으로서의 증거능력이 삭제되어 향후 새로운 쟁점으로 부각될 것으로 보인다.
즉, 그동안 검찰에서는 영상녹화물을 본증으로 사용할 것을 전제로 하여 피의자신문조서를 작성하지 않았는데, 만일 본증으로 사용할 수 없게 된다면 향후 영상녹화를 할 실익 자체가 줄어들 수 있다는 문제가 발생하게 된다. 또한 영상녹화물을 본증으로 사용하지 못하게 되어 피의자 신문조서 작성과 영상녹화를 병행하게 되면 피의자신문조서를 작성하지 않고 신문만하는 경우에 비하여 피의자신문조서의 작성, 출력, 열람, 조서의 간인 등에 시간이 소요되므로 영상녹화시간이 늘어난다는 문제점 등 여러 가지 문제점이 제기되고 있는만큼 본 사안에 대하여 심층적으로 검토해보기로 한다.

영어초록

The reformed criminal procedure law has introduced the visual recording with sound as evidence. It is a remarkable change for the law adapts the new technology as a means to produce the out of court statement. Until now the criminal procedure law only allows the written statement to prove the out of court statement in investigation.
However there are still big problems and limitations in reformed criminal procedure. In the first place, the congress had deleted the clause which allows the visual recording to produce the out of court statement. Thus the prosecutors can not use the visual recordings to prove what the suspect or witness said during the investigation.
The logic to disallow those usages is that the impression of the visual recording on the judges is so strong that they can not disbelieve that. This logic has no reasonable grounds. There are many developed countries that has already used the visual recording as an evidence.
Some argues that the visual recording can not be used to impeach the suspect or the witness him/her self. They insist that according to the new law, the prosecutors only use the visual recording as present recollection refreshed. The present recollection refreshed is different from the impeachment. Even if the visual recording is inadmissible to prove the out of court statement, it can be used to impeach. For instance, the statement which is gained against the Miranda rule or the right to counsel still allowed to the court for the impeachment purpose.
As long as the visual recordings are not used to prove the out of court statement of the suspect or the witness directly for the prosecutor's case, the procedure how to make the visual recording is meaningless. Only the voluntariness, authentication and foundation would matter.

참고자료

· 없음