성폭력특례법 제30조 제6항은 피해아동이 법정에서 진술하지 않더라도피해자의 영상진술 조사과정에 동석했던 신뢰관계인의 진술로 성립의 진정을 인정하게 함으로서 그 피해 진술이 증거능력을 가지도록 하였다. 이러한 피해아동의 영상진술의 증거능력 인정 규정은 피해 아동을 법정 진술로 인한 2차 피해로부터 보호하지만 피고인의 반대신문권행사를 제한하고 피고인의 방어권이 침해될 수 있다는 점에서 피해자 보호와 피고인의 방어권이 충돌한다. 이에 헌법재판소는 피고인의 반대신문권을 아예 배제하는 방식으로 피해자를 보호하는 성폭력특례법 제30조제6항은 피고인의 공정한 재판을 받을 권리를 지나치게 제한한 입법이라고 판시하였다.
그러나 여전히 미성년자 피해자가 법정 내에서 진술할 경우 받게 되는 2차 피해가 매우 크고, 이로 인해 오히려 실체적 진실 발견이라는 형사소송의 궁극적 목적을 달성하기 어렵다는 점에서 법정 내에서 피고인에게 피해자 증인을 대면하고 이에 대하여 반대 신문을 할 수 있는 방식이 제한 될 필요성은 있다. 미성년 피해자는 증인신문의 취지나 질문의 의도를 파악하지 못하는 경우가 많고, 피해자 증언 자체를 거부함으로서 신속한 재판 및 실체적 진실에 합치하는 또 다른 면의 공정한 재판이 침해될 수 있기 때문이다. 따라서 반대신문권과 전문법칙을 지나치게 엄격히 적용할 경우에 오히려 성폭력 미성년 피해자가 진술의 어려움을 겪어 재판의 지연을 초래하거나 진실발견을 저해할 우려가 있다면, 그 예외를 인정하는 것이 필요하다. 그러나 예외를 인정함에 있어서 헌법재판소가 지적했듯이 피해자의 진술을 듣고, 이에 반박할 수 있는 기회를 부여하여 피고인의 공격 및 방어가 가능하도록 하는 공정한 재판을 받을 권리의 본질은 침해되어서는 안된다. 본 논문에서는 피고인과 피해자 두 당사자들의 기본권 충돌을 보다 조화롭게 해결하기 위해 반대신문 방식을 재구성하는 방안을 검토하고자 한다.
Article 30, Paragraph 6 of the Act on Special Cases of Sexual Violence allows the statement of a trusted person who was present during the investigation of the victim’s video statement to be true, so that the statement has admissibility even if the child victim does not testify in court. The provision for recognizing the admissibility of evidence of a child victim’s video statement limits the exercise of the defendant’s right to cross-examination, and the defendant’s right to defense conflicts with the protection of the victim in that the defendant’s right to defense may be violated. In response, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 30 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Sexual Violence, which protects victims by completely excluding the accused’s right to cross-examination, is a legislation that excessively restricts the basic rights of the accused. However, it is necessary to recognize exceptions to the principle of giving opportunities for cross-examination in court in that the secondary damage inflicted on minor victims is very great, as well as the defendant’s right to a fair trial. This is because minor victims often do not understand the purpose of the witness examination or the intention of the cross-examination, and refusal to testify itself may infringe on a speedy trial and another aspect of a fair trial consistent with the substantive truth. In the case of excessively strict application of cross-examination rights and hearsay rules, it is necessary to recognize exceptions if there is a concern that a minor victim of sexual violence may experience difficulties in making a statement, causing a delay in trial or hindering the discovery of the truth. Considering that the essence of the right to cross-examine is to listen to the victim’s statement and give an opportunity to refute it, as long as this essence is not violated, a plan to reconstruct the method of cross-examination of minor victims can be legislatively reviewed.
Article 30, Paragraph 6 of the Act on Special Cases of Sexual Violence allows the statement of a trusted person who was present during the investigation of the victim’s video statement to be true, so that the statement has admissibility even if the child victim does not testify in court. The provision for recognizing the admissibility of evidence of a child victim’s video statement limits the exercise of the defendant’s right to cross-examination, and the defendant’s right to defense conflicts with the protection of the victim in that the defendant’s right to defense may be violated. In response, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 30 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Sexual Violence, which protects victims by completely excluding the accused’s right to cross-examination, is a legislation that excessively restricts the basic rights of the accused. However, it is necessary to recognize exceptions to the principle of giving opportunities for cross-examination in court in that the secondary damage inflicted on minor victims is very great, as well as the defendant’s right to a fair trial. This is because minor victims often do not understand the purpose of the witness examination or the intention of the cross-examination, and refusal to testify itself may infringe on a speedy trial and another aspect of a fair trial consistent with the substantive truth. In the case of excessively strict application of cross-examination rights and hearsay rules, it is necessary to recognize exceptions if there is a concern that a minor victim of sexual violence may experience difficulties in making a statement, causing a delay in trial or hindering the discovery of the truth. Considering that the essence of the right to cross-examine is to listen to the victim’s statement and give an opportunity to refute it, as long as this essence is not violated, a plan to reconstruct the method of cross-examination of minor victims can be legislatively reviewed.