위법수집증거배제 법칙에 관한 미국 판례의 시사점 = The implication of the U.S. cases on the exclusionary rule

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Article 308.2 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court has also scrapped its former stance on non-verbal evidence and applied the exclusionary rule to all types of evidence, starting with the 2007 unanimous ruling on the Jeju governor case. However, the academic community and the court agree that the scope of the case does not require absolute ban on the use of all evidences collected by investigative agencies that do not comply completely with the procedures set by the law. Meanwhile, it is not enough to provide clear guidance in practice as academic discussions have been divided so far on the basis of principles and exceptions, and the criteria presented by the Supreme Court's case are too comprehensive and abstract. In the case of the U.S., which is the origin of the law on the exclusion of illegal collection and has a profound influence on our criminal procedure law, because the exception is widely recognized in the case and has developed various theories, it is thought that reviewing the U.S. case will greatly help complement the abstract standards of our case. The main requirement for exceptions to be granted in recent U.S. precedents is that good-faith exception doctrine or the attenuation doctrine is applied, such as when the investigation agency is well-intentioned and either willful or gross negligence is not recognized, when the illegality of violations of laws is minor, and when there is a lack of correlation between misconduct and evidence.
The proper direction of operation of the exclusionary rule cannot be considered separately from the purpose of the rule. The rule aims to harmonize the people's basic rights protection through compliance with due process of law and revealing the actual truth to eventually realize a just society where all citizens can live as human beings and happily. Therefore, judgement should not be made that is too inclined to comply with the due process of law under the guise of guaranteeing the rights and interests of the accused. This is because compliance with the actual due process of law should ensure not only the defendant but also the human rights of the victims, who are the same people. Therefore, it should be prudent to determine whether the investigative agency act illegally and the evidence he has collected be ruled out, and it is worth referring to the U.S. exception theory. Therefore, I would like to suggest as an important consideration whether the investigative agency is intentional or gross, whether the agency's discretion in determining legality is within reasonable bounds, whether the illegality is slight considering the extent to which the people's basic rights and whether illegal act is relevant to the collection of evidence.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이은모, "형사소송법" 박영사 2019
• 2 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2017
• 3 김종구, "재량적 위법수집증거배제법칙과 증거수집의 주체" 한국형사법학회 26 (26): 233-260, 2014
• 4 한상훈, "임의제출물의 영치와 위법수집증거 배제법칙 - 대법원ﾠ2016. 3. 10. 선고 2013도11233ﾠ판결 -" 법조협회 65 (65): 603-625, 2016
• 5 한성훈, "위법하게 수집한 증거의 예외적 허용에 관한 소고" 법학연구소 15 (15): 215-252, 2012
• 6 김승주, "위법수집증거배제법칙에 관한 10년간 판례의 흐름" 한국형사소송법학회 9 (9): 193-241, 2017
• 7 김용배, "위법수집증거배제법칙상 1, 2차적 증거의 개념 및 증거능력 인정요건 - 인과관계의 단절 내지 희석을 중심으로 -" 법조협회 63 (63): 162-222, 2014
• 8 조국, "위법수집증거배제법칙" 박영사 2017
• 9 한제희, "위법수집증거 배제법칙 운용의 개선방향" 한국형사소송법학회 9 (9): 269-320, 2017
• 10 김재윤, "위법수집증거 배제기준의 정립에 관한 고찰" 한국법학원 (120) : 144-171, 2010
• 11 신양균, "우리나라 형사소송법상 위법수집증거배제법칙" 한국형사법학회 26 (26): 447-477, 2014
• 12 신동운, "신형사소송법" 법문사 [서울] 2014
• 13 安 晟 秀, "각국의 위법수집증거 배제법칙과 우리법상 수용방안" 한국법학원 (96) : 187-236, 2007
• 14 김봉수, "‘재량적’ 위법수집증거배제(론)에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 왜 유독 ‘비진술증거’에 대해서만 ‘재량적 배제’를 인정하려 하는가? -" 한국비교형사법학회 11 (11): 189-212, 2009
• 15 Craig M. Bradley, "is the exclusionary rule dead?" 102 (102): 2012
• 16 Meredith N. Garagiola, "When the constable behaves and the court blunder : expanding the good faith exception in the wake of Arizona v. Gant" 47 (47): 2010
• 17 Harvard Law Review, "Toward a general good faith exception" 127 (127): 2013
• 18 Matthew Allan Josephson, "To exclude or not to exclude : the future of the exclusionary rule after Herring v. United states" 43 (43): 2009
• 19 Robert E. Belanger, "Judicial decision making and the exclusionary rule" 21 (21): 2016
• 20 Emily J. Sack, "Illegal stops and the exclusionary rule: the consequences of Utah v. Strieff" 22 (22): 2017