본 논문은 2013년의 대상판결과 관련하여 재량적 증거배제법칙의 판단기준과 증거수집의 주체의 문제를 비교법적 측면에서 고찰한 것이다. 먼저, 대상판결은 본 사건의 증거수집행위가 형사처벌되는 범죄행위에 해당할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 피고인의 사생활의 비밀 내지 통신의 자유 등의 기본권을 침해하는 행위에 해당한다는 점은 인정하면서도 공익과 사익의 비교형량하에 증거능력을 인정하고 있다. 그러나 최근 미연방대법원은 재량적 증거배제법칙의 비교형량의 기준과 관련하여 수사기관이 의도적으로(deliberately), 미필적 고의로(recklessly) 또는 중과실(gross negligence)로 위법증거를 수집한 경우는 증거사용을 배제한다. 이와 같은 미연방대법원 판례의 경향은 우리 형사소송법상 위법수집증거배제법칙의 해석에 의미 있는 지침이 될 수 있다고 판단된다. 대상판결에서도 증거수집이 범죄행위를 통해서 의도적으로 수집된 것이므로 증거사용을 배제하는 것이 타당했다고 판단된다. 종래 우리 대법원은 증거수집의 주체가 ‘수사기관’이건 ‘사인’이건 관계없이 재량적 증거배제법칙을 적용하고 있었다. 그러나 증거수집의 주체가 수사기관이 아닌 ‘일반 공무원’인 경우에 관한 대법원 판례는 찾기 어려웠다. 미국의 경우, 종래 증거배제법칙은 원칙적으로 수사기관이 증거수집의 주체인 경우에 적용되는 것으로 보았고, 사인이 수집한 위법증거에 대해서는 증거배제법칙이 적용되지 않는 것으로 보았다. 공립학교 교사와 같은 일반 공무원이 증거수집의 주체인 경우는 재량적 증거배제법칙을 적용하였다. 본 대상판결의 증거수집 주체인 시청직원은 사인과 같은 위치에서 증거수집을 한 측면이 있지만, 공무원으로서의 지위를 갖는 자이므로, 본 대상판결은 증거수집의 주체가 일반 공무원인 경우에도 재량적 증거배제법칙을 적용한 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 따라서 우리 대법원은 이제 증거수집의 주체가 ‘수사기관’이건, ‘일반 공무원’이건, ‘사인’이건 모두 재량적 증거배제법칙을 취하고 있다는 것이 본 대상판결을 계기로 더욱 명확해 진 것으로 판단된다.

The Korean Code of Criminal Procedure adopted an exclusionary rule in article 308-2. The exclusionary rule was originally created by the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court declared that evidence seized by unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the defendant in a criminal case. The exclusionary rule in Korean Code of Criminal Procedure originated from this doctrine which was established by the US Supreme Court. However, the meaning of the rule is different in each country. For example, the rule is not applicable where evidence is illegally seized by a private party in the US because the rule is basically applicable only when evidence is seized by a law enforcement officer such as a policeman. The rule is also interpreted as a rule which automatically excludes illegally seized evidence. The rule is applicable whether the public official is law enforcement official or not. However, if the public officer who illegally seized evidence is not a law enforcement official, the rule is applicable only where its deterrence benefits outweighs its social costs. In recent cases the US Supreme Court has acted to severly restrict the exclusionary rule. A line of cases in the US established a discretionary exclusionary rule which requires balancing the efficacy of deterrence of future government misbehavior against the costs of exclusion in determining whether to exclude illegally seized evidence. More specifically, in recent cases the Court has limited its application to cases where the police have violated the Fourth Amendment purposely, knowingly, or recklessly. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that the rule is applicable whether a searcher and seizer is a law enforcement official or a private party. The Supreme Court of Korea has interpreted the rule as a discretionary rule which needs balancing of private interests against public interests. In a recent case where a searcher was a municipal official and not a law enforcement official, the Supreme Court of Korea held that the evidence which is found by an illegal search which constitutes a crime was admissible because public interests outweighs private interests. The author of this article analyzed a recent case of the Supreme Court of Korea. In the recent case, the Korean Supreme Court of Korea has indicated that the exclusionary rule is applicable where a searcher is a police officer or a municipal officer or a private party, and exclusion of evidence should be determined by balancing public interests against private interests. The author of this article argues that the discretionary rule which is adopted by the Supreme Court of Korea is appropriate. However, the author is against the tests which are adopted by the Court. The author argues that illegally seized evidence should be excluded when a searcher and seizer's conduct is deliberate, reckless and grossly negligent. The author argues that seized evidence by misbehavior which constitutes a crime should be excluded. Thus, the Supreme Court of Korea has to change its standpoint when it determines exclusion of illegally seized evidence by balancing relevant interests.