CAJ | 학술논문

大多数法律人认为，《刑事诉讼法》第188条第1款应被解释为亲属证人“作证却免于强制出庭的权利”。本文基于法教义学的立场和方法，从第188条第1款存在的两种不同解释出发，论证了“作证却免于强制出庭的权利”并不能真正实现立法目的，也直接剥夺了作为被告入辩护权应有之义的对质权。第188条第1款应被解释为亲属证人“免于强制作证的权利”，而非“作证却免于强制出庭的权利”，即亲属证人在审前未向控方作证的，法庭不得强制其到庭作证。如其已在审前向控方作证，且符合出庭作证条件，经法院通知没有正当理由拒不出庭作证的，法院非但不能强制其出庭作证，还应将其庭前书面证言予以排除。
대다수법률인인위，《형사소송법》제188조제1관응피해석위친속증인“작증각면우강제출정적권리”。본문기우법교의학적립장화방법，종제188조제1관존재적량충불동해석출발，론증료“작증각면우강제출정적권리”병불능진정실현입법목적，야직접박탈료작위피고입변호권응유지의적대질권。제188조제1관응피해석위친속증인“면우강제작증적권리”，이비“작증각면우강제출정적권리”，즉친속증인재심전미향공방작증적，법정불득강제기도정작증。여기이재심전향공방작증，차부합출정작증조건，경법원통지몰유정당이유거불출정작증적，법원비단불능강제기출정작증，환응장기정전서면증언여이배제。
Most lawyers hold that paragraph 1 of article 188 should be construed as that witnesses, who are relatives of the defendant, should “ testify, yet being exempted from the obligation to be forced to appear in court .” Based on the position and method of legal dogmatics, this article, stemming from the two different interpretations of first paragraph of article 188 of “ a right being exempted from the ob- ligation to testify” and “testify but have the right of being exempted from the obligation to appear in court ”, this demonstrates that the latter interpretation “ testify but have the right of being exempted from the obligation to appear in court ” not only fails to achieve the purpose of legislation, but also directly deprive the defendant of the confrontation right which is the natural part of his right to defend. Therefore, if the defendant＇s spouse, parents, children did not testify at trial, the court must not compel them to appear in court to testify. If they had testified at a pretrial hearing, but refused to testify in court without justifica- tion upon notice, although the court should not force them to testify, yet it should rule out their written pretrial testimony.