CAJ | 학술논문

现行三大诉讼法均未明确规定将测谎结论作为证据种类单列，诉讼法学界对此也存有争议。首先通过对否定测谎结论作为证据的观点进行反证分析后认为：测谎结论具有证据的客观真实性和关联性，可作为诉讼证据使用；再将测谎结论与司法精神病鉴定进行对比分析后认为，测谎结论可归于证据种类中鉴定意见一类。最后，建议对测谎技术作如下规范：一是制定行业标准，严格规范测谎员的资格认证；二是加强对测谎鉴定机构的监管。
현행삼대소송법균미명학규정장측황결론작위증거충류단렬，소송법학계대차야존유쟁의。수선통과대부정측황결론작위증거적관점진행반증분석후인위：측황결론구유증거적객관진실성화관련성，가작위소송증거사용；재장측황결론여사법정신병감정진행대비분석후인위，측황결론가귀우증거충류중감정의견일류。최후，건의대측황기술작여하규범：일시제정행업표준，엄격규범측황원적자격인증；이시가강대측황감정궤구적감관。
None of the three existing Procedure Laws clearly make polygraph conclusion as the types of evidence which is listed separately;the academic circle of Procedure Law was also controversial about this.Firstly,Conducting a disproof analysis on the viewpoints making polygraph conclusion as evidence,we think that polygraph conclusions,possessing the properties of evidence which is real objective and associated,can be used as litigation evidence.Further by making a comparative analysis between judicial psychiatric appraisal and polygraph conclusion,it is thought that polygraph conclu-sion can be classified as the category of appraisal opinion.Finally,it is recommended to make the following specifications for polygraph technique：First,setting industry standards,strictly regulating the qualification certification for polygraph examiners;Secondly,strengthening the supervision of polygraph accreditation bodies.