문서파일의 증거능력 ― 원세훈 사건 대법원 판결에 대한 평석을 중심으로 ― = Admissibility of the Document File ― Focusing on the Judgement of Supreme Court in Won Se-Hun case ―

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper aims at refuting the stance of the Supreme Court regarding NIS(the National Intelligence Service)’s online intervention into presidential election of South Korea in 2012. That is, this paper is written to closely review the opinion of the Supreme Court which reversed and remanded the conviction of the appellate court on the alleged online intervention of Won Se-Hun, ex-chief of NIS, into 2012 presidential election, disallowing the admissibility of evidence for the core document file in terms of the criminal evidence rule. In the first part of this paper, facts charged are summarized and two pieces of core evidence in this case, that is, two document files are described closely. The full-scale analysis is in the second part of this paper. I analyzed the judgement of Supreme Court regarding admissibility as evidence of two document files in comparison with those of the trial court and the appellate court. I agreed to the stance of Supreme Court regarding application of Article 313, Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law, because I thought the Court’s interpretation of the provision was reasonable which accepted the authenticity only by court testimony of draftsman. Next, I criticize the opinion of Supreme Court that refused to apply Article 315, Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, for two reasons: First of all, “coarse contents in document files” that might be a probable ground on which the Court refused to apply Article 315, is out of common-sense in this digital era; Also it lacks consistency since it does not correspond to the precedent of the Court itself. Lastly I refute squarely the standpoint of Supreme Court regarding applicability of documents as evidence. That is because the Court treated the documents as hearsay though it is a matter of proving the facts that do not satisfy “the connection with the facts to be proved” which is required to be excluded from evidence as hearsay. In the third part of this paper, the analysis result is summarized and I demonstrated that it was fully possible to acknowledge two document files as core admissible evidence and that there was a gross blunder in the Court’s reversing the decision of the appellate court which had made a close examination on that point.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 정진연, "형사소송법 제313조 제1항의 해석과 관련한 소고" 성균관법학 17 (3) : 357 ~ 382, 2005
• 2 이영란, "한국형사소송법" 나남, 2008
• 3 이완규, "진술증거의 전문증거성과 진정성 문제의 구별" 형사판례연구 20 : 527 ~ 559, 2012
• 4 오기두, "전자증거법" 박영사, 2015
• 5 노명선, "전자적 증거의 수집과 증거능력에 관한 몇 가지 검토" 형사법의 신동향 : 74 ~ 125, 2008
• 6 권오걸, "전문증거의 개념과 범위" 형사법연구 24 (1) : 217 ~ 246, 2012
• 7 김희균, "이메일 계정 속 첨부파일의 증거능력" ‘원세훈 전국정원장 상고심 판결의 의미와 쟁점’ 국회토론회 발제문 : 1 ~ 18,
• 8 서기호, "원세훈 사건 2, 3심의 판결 비교 -274쪽 판결과 19쪽 판결의 무게 차이" ‘원세훈 전국정원장 상고심 판결의 의미와 쟁점’ 국회토론회 발제문 : 1 ~ 10,
• 9 백형구, "알기쉬운 형사소송법" 박영사, 2007
• 10 이완규, "실질적 진정성립에 관한 판례이론의 비판적 검토" 저스티스 (86) : 140 ~ 155, 2005
• 11 배종대, "신형사소송법" 홍문사, 2013
• 12 신동운, "신형사소송법" 법문사, 2012
• 13 최성필, "디지털 증거의 증거능력" 독일증거법의 현대적 쟁점과 과제: (사)한국형사소송법학회 독일형사법연구회 공동 학술대회 발제문 : 1 ~ 67, 2015
• 14 이광철, "대법원은 일관되었는가?" ‘원세훈 전 국정원장 상고심 판결의 의미와 쟁점’ 국회토론회 토론문 : 1 ~ 9,
• 15 신이철, "당연히 증거능력이 인정되는 서류 －특히 형사소송법 제315조를 중심으로－" 법학논총 29 (4) : 451 ~ 472, 2012