Until 2006, the judicial attitude of ‘Korean Supreme Court’ (hereafter ‘KSC’) about scientific evidence had not been so positive or clear. However, the attitude of KSC about it has been changing drastically since 2007. There had been appeared 4 KSC decisions which mentioned about scientific evidence after 2007. SectionⅠand Section Ⅱ describes and contrasts overall trend of KSC decisions about a scientific evidence before and after the year of 2007. The keyword of 4 KSC decisions which mentioned about scientific evidence is ‘scientific method’. I guess the 4 KSC decisions were influenced heavily from the U.S. Daubert decision in the year of 1993. Hence, Section Ⅲ summarizes U.S. Daubert decision and ensuing U.S. decisions with regard to 4 KSC decisions. Then, what is the concrete meaning of scientific method in the context of Korean criminal justice? KSC decision in the year of 2011 provides a good example which can be analyzed deeply. On the other hand, it is also true that a substantial number of miscarriages of justice involved scientific fraud or junk science. Hence section Ⅴ explains and suggests that the appropriate measures should be taken to evade false testimony and false convictions. The regulation of DNA profiling, which has developed gradually over the last twenty years globally, can serve as a model for other laboratory units. The accreditation of crime laboratories, the certification of examiners, and the standardization and promulgation of written protocols for each technique would go a long way in professionalizing forensic science. In addition, quality assurance programs, including proficiency testing and external audits, should be mandated. In section Ⅵ, I conclude that the recent trend of KSC decisions about a scientific evidence is basically sound one because of the relatively drastic movement of Korean version of criminal justice revolution from the early 1990’s through 2000’s.