???????? ?? ???? ? ?????? ???? (The evidence competency of protocols and videotapes of the investigation body according to the revised criminal procedure law)

?? 1954? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????. ?? ???????(?? ?8496?)?? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????????.
??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????. ??????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???. ??????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ? ??? ??? ????. ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ? ??.
??????? ?? ??? ? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??. ????? ?? ??? ????, ??? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????, ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ? ? ??. ???? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ??. ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????, ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ? ???? ?????. ????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ??.
??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ? ? ???. ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ? ??? ????? ??? ???, ???? ????(?? ????)? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???????????? ??? ? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ? ??? ????.

Recently, an extensive revision of criminal procedure law has been made which was enacted in 1954. In the revised criminal procedure law, a set of provisions are created to strengthen the defendant's defense rights as well as transparency and trustworthiness of investigation process. However, the revised one does not measure up to the standard for merit in terms of evidence law. Given the fact that the ideal of the Open Court Doctrine can be best realized by the revision of evidence law, the lukewarm revision this time is not sufficient to meet our expectation. Although the ¡®doctrine of open court proceedings¡¯ was emphasized as one of the main objectives of revision work, we are still far from the goal of the open court because the investigation record made by prosecutors can be adopted as evidence in court. However, it is relieving that video tapes have been excluded as evidence, which was strongly opposed by prosecutors. The ¡®doctrine of open court proceedings¡¯ is now the mainstream which is hard to run against. In order to grow into an advanced country, this doctrine must be carried out, in which all evidence is examined by verbal statements between prosecutors and defence lawyers and the conviction is made based on those legal debates. In this context, the revised criminal procedure law falls short of the mark. Considering that investigation records as well as documents made by prosecutors are still accepted as evidence, it is very probable that video tapes would be claimed as valid evidence. Yet, the idea that prosecutors should have the upper hand in the results of trials is deep-rooted. But we should try to make the court a place where criminal trials are conducted in line with the spirit of the open court. The revised criminal procedure law has only taken a step forward. Thus, efforts to restrict using investigation records as evidence should be continued, thereby the ¡®doctrine of open court proceedings¡¯ may be in full swing in courtrooms.