A Comparative Study on the Obstruction of Justice of U.S.-Korea

In Korea, the focus has been on the strict principles of evidence and the protection of human rights of suspects and defendants, neglecting the efficiency of judicial action and the protection of victims and reference witnesses, while unreasonable or coercive investigations conducted with the idea that investigative agencies can reveal everything have been reprimanded by the public. Moreover, the precedent is judged as if the criminal suspect has the right to refuse to state and to remain silent, and has no legal obligation to state the truth, and even if the suspect confesses falsely, the investigative agency has the right to investigate and collect evidence to discover the truth despite the existence of the confession. However, even if the revised Criminal Procedure Act prohibits coercive investigations such as torture by stipulating the law of exclusion of confession without randomness (Article 309), the law of exclusion of illegal collection evidence (Article 308-2), and the privilege of prohibiting self-incrimination (Article 200 (2)), while guaranteeing human rights by complying with due process, this does not guarantee the right to lie to suspects or reference persons. Although Article 5 of the U.S. Federal Amendment recognizes the privilege of prohibiting self-incrimination, it is clear from the fact that it has regulations for the regulation of obstruction of justice by lying. In the end, in order to become a trusted judicial institution by the people, inappropriate and unfair investigations must be ended, but considering that those who know the truth about other people's criminal cases can be obliged to cooperate in revealing the truth of the case, and that it increases national interests by reducing the burden on investigative agencies, it is necessary to introduce effective protection measures for crime victims and witnesses as in the United States and a regulatory system on obstruction of justice that punishes obstruction of justice.