In this blog post, we will look at how the Criminal Procedure Act ensures the legality and reliability of evidence through the principles of proof by evidence and free-proof.
The Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that criminal facts must be proven by evidence and that the recognition of criminal facts must reach the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is called the principle of proof by evidence. This means that the judge’s arbitrary recognition of facts is not allowed, and it can be said that it is the premise for enabling fair and objective criminal trials. Therefore, evidence occupies a key position in the system of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure distinguishes between the admissibility and probative value of evidence.
First, admissibility refers to the legal qualification of a piece of evidence to be used as material for proof. Evidence with admissibility can be used as material for the court to acknowledge the main facts and a guilty verdict can be rendered based on this. Evidence without admissibility cannot be used as material for the court to acknowledge the facts in principle.
The requirements for admissibility are stipulated by law. The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates the conditions under which evidence must be excluded as the exclusionary rules of evidence, the exclusionary rule of confessions, and the exclusionary rule of expertise. The common purpose of these rules is to guarantee the rights of the suspect and the accused to achieve a fair trial.
The exclusionary rule is a principle that denies the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the law, and its purpose is to prevent the illegal collection of evidence by criminal justice agencies. The admissibility of derivative evidence, or secondary evidence, obtained based on facts learned through illegally obtained evidence, is also excluded under the exclusionary rule. This is called the “poisonous fruit theory,” which states that if the primary evidence collected illegally is a poisoned tree, then the secondary evidence collected from it is the poisonous fruit on that tree. For example, if a statement is obtained through an illegal arrest without a warrant, the admissibility of the statement is not recognized, as well as the admissibility of the physical evidence found with the help of the statement. However, if it is determined that the causal relationship between the primary evidence and the secondary evidence that was collected illegally has been diluted or severed, the secondary evidence may be admitted as evidence.
The exclusionary rule is a principle that denies the admissibility of evidence if it was obtained by the investigating agency or court in a manner that limits the voluntariness of the statement. Although confessions are important evidence, if the investigation method relies solely on obtaining confessions, there is a risk of human rights violations and sometimes it can be difficult to uncover the truth. Therefore, the exclusionary rule prohibits the forcing of confessions by recognizing the admissibility of evidence only when the subject of the confession makes a voluntary confession without physical or mental pressure.
The principle of hearsay is that hearsay evidence has no evidentiary value. Hearsay evidence is a statement made orally by a person who experienced the matter, such as a defendant or witness, and was not made directly in court but was instead passed on indirectly by another person. Such hearsay evidence includes oral statements and documents. The grounds for the expert rules include the fact that there is a risk of editing and manipulation by the person who delivers the expert evidence, that the defendant cannot cross-examine the witness in court about the expert evidence, and that the judge cannot directly ask the witness questions in court and hear the answers, so accurate verbal information cannot be obtained. However, if the defendant agrees to allow the evidence to be used even though it is expert evidence, the evidence is recognized as competent, which is called “agreement to evidence.”
On the other hand, probative value is different from admissibility in that it refers to the extent to which the evidence can contribute to the determination of the facts, i.e. the credibility of the evidence as a substantive value. Probative value assessment is a matter of determining the difference between the degree of evidence value, which is large and small, and is distinct from admissibility assessment, which only determines the presence or absence of admissibility. Admissibility does not mean probative value, and probative value does not mean admissibility.
The evaluation of the proof is left to the free judgment of the judge, and this principle is called the principle of free judgment. When evidence with evidentiary value is submitted, the judge’s judgment on the value of the evidence is left to the judge’s free judgment. At this point, the judge’s decision must be based on reasonable grounds, and simple arbitrary decisions are not justified. Under the doctrine of free judgment, judges are free to choose the evidence, and if there is conflicting evidence, it is up to the judge to decide which evidence to believe. Even if the testimony of an unreliable witness is not credible, the judge may choose to believe some of the testimony.
The importance of evidence in the criminal procedure system cannot be overstated. In criminal trials, evidence is not just a reference material, but a decisive factor that forms the basis of the judgment. All criminal facts must be proven through evidence, and it is up to the judge to determine whether such evidence can be legally recognized and how reliable it is. Therefore, in the criminal procedure system, a procedure that thoroughly verifies and guarantees the legality and reliability of evidence is essential.
It is also important to protect the human rights of the suspect or defendant during the evidence collection process. If evidence is not collected legally, it will be excluded from the courtroom, which is a means of securing the procedural justice necessary for the realization of justice. Judges must lead fair trials while adhering to these principles to maintain the authority and credibility of the law.
In the end, evidence in the Code of Criminal Procedure is not only important as a legal element, but also plays a key role in terms of social justice and human rights protection. The importance of evidence is directly linked to the fairness of the trial, and it contributes to the clarification of the truth of the crime and the maintenance of social trust. In this context, the provisions and principles of evidence in the Code of Criminal Procedure serve as important guidelines for ensuring the fairness of legal procedures and helping judges make correct judgments.
