국민참여재판의 여러 실무적인 쟁점들에 대한 고찰

Abstract

We have almost 6-year-history of the jury trial system now, and we had not have any legal background of that system before its introduction. For the last 6 years, we have tried over 1,000 cases based on the jury trial system, and many scholarly debates have flourished on big issues related to the jury trial system. On the other hand, less attention has been paid on the miscellaneous and procedural matters. This article touches on the practical matters that need to be amended in terms of legal interpretation and legislation, which I have been confronted with while trying the cases in the jury trials. With regard to the jury selection procedures, the time limit for the preemptory challenges for the jury pool, the scope of the questions for selecting the jury, and the defensive no-cause preemptory challenge which can overrule the opponent-party's no-cause preemptory challenge are discussed in this article. With regard to the trial procedures, the jury list service to the parties to guarantee the criminal procedures, the criminal record examination that has possibility of giving rise to prejudice to the jury, the time limit of investigator's testimony, and the defense lawyer's examination of the evidence that the prosecutor suggests are also discussed in this article. Lastly, with regard to the verdict, some problems of the present preliminary jury system and the reason why the grounds for the verdict should be written down are introduced. Now the amendment to the jury system law is pending in the legislature. According to the amendment, the verdict made by the jury will practically bind the judge. As the jury verdict becomes more important to the parties, the method to guarantee the procedural rights to the parties at each phase will be decisive to the success of the jury system. Therefore, this article is focused on each phase of the jury trial, and I made real efforts to reflect diverse opinions of practitioners who have plenty of experiences of trying cases in jury trials. It is because the opinion of the practitioners is most important in discussing the trial procedures.