Evidential Admissibility of Suspect-Interrogation Protocol, Statement of Accomplice is recorded, Drawn by Judicial Police Officer
문영식
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15821/slr.2013.21.1.002
2013-05-01
Seoul Law Review
Abstract:The first day of Jun. 2007. the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Act has been revised significantly. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court succeed the previous precedents about the requirement of evidential admissibility of suspect-interrogation protocol, statement of accomplice is recorded, drawn by judicial police officer. Then, the following questions occur. ① In previous precedents, The relevant provisions were correctly interpreted and applied or not. ② In spite of substantial revision of the relevant provisions, the Supreme Court's acception of the position of previous precedents is reasonable or not. In this paper, to solve these problems. The relevant provisions before and after the revision, precedents of the Supreme Court were examined microscopically. As a result of the study about evidential admissibility of suspect-interrogation protocol, statement of accomplice is recorded, drawn by judicial police officer, the following conclusions were drawn. ① When accomplice is a co-defendant, evidential admissibility of suspect-interrogation protocol is decided on the basis of Article 312③. But accomplice-original statement maker should recognize the content of it. Because in this case, accomplice-original statement maker is the only defendant who was ‘the suspect’. ② When accomplice is not a co-defendant, evidential admissibility of suspect-interrogation protocol is decided on the basis of Article 312④. Because in this case, accomplice-original statement maker is not a ‘defendant’ but the suspect. If accomplice could not attend the court because of disease, death, unknown whereabouts, foreign residence, Article 314 may be applied.