국민참여재판과 항소여하

Abstract

The basic principles of criminal procedure law are applied to Korean Jury Trials' ruling as those are applied to non-jury trials'. And protesting against ruling and appeal against acquittal are also permitted on Korean Jury Trials. Since the implementation of Korean Jury Trials, some have expressed a concern that the institutional significance of Korean Jury Trials could be played down with appeal cases which were brought by reason of unjust weighing of the offense and whose ruling was reversed in the appellate court. The goal of this study is to suggest desirable policy direction in a review of comparative law, about whether setting some restrictions on appeal in case (especially for acquittal) that juries' verdict concur with judge's judgement. The necessity of restriction on appeal for Korean Jury Trials is significant in the reflection of the institutional significance of Korean Jury Trials which intends to enhance democratical legitimacy of criminal justice and build up trust among the general public. The attempt to make restriction on appeal is lack of theoretical rationales under the circumstance where verdict just has advisory effect on the present Korean Jury Trials. But according to judicial precedents and scholars' opinions, restriction on appeal is acceptable in a case that juries' verdict concur with judge's judgement on acquittal in the light of the institutional meaning of Korean Jury Trials. When a determination of the conclusive form of Korean Jury Trials is made, we should consider whether making some restrictions on appeal. In addition we need to make Korean Jury Trials as one which gives legal binding force to juries' verdict and we must make restriction on appeal in a case of unanimous verdict for acquittal. And there's plenty of room for putting restriction on appeal in case of majority verdict. For instance, when a certain number of juries is secured, restriction on appeal could be accepted in a review of comparative law.