시민 참여에 의한 검찰 공소권한의 통제
A Control on the Prosecutor's Authority to Indictment by the Citizen Participation
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Today, the reason why the prosecution is pegged as an object of reformation is that the prosecution fails to clear off its past history that it neglected its duty and that it was appropriated for other purposes. In the process of preparing the statute criminal procedure law, to remedy the malformed prosecution power, especially a misuse and an abuse of the authority to prosecute, a system of application for a ruling was created. However, neglecting the system and leaving it not to function well through a revision of criminal procedure law for the worse, the prosecution has brought the system to its knees. Moreover, the appeal system that the prosecution is for itself internally preparing as a control scheme also has had obvious limits, and the checks by constitutional trials also have not surpassed the symbolic meanings because of various restrictions. However, after getting out of authoritarianism, our society, on the road to democracy, achieved people’s participation in criminal trials, and, even though nobody can easily prejudge how situations of future discussions will evolve,it is obvious that people’s control over the prosecution’s authority to prosecute is in anyway inevitable. Therefore, if, ruminating on the true implied meaning of people’s participation,the prosecution want to re-start as a trustworthy government institution, it should run concurrently the existing system of ex post control as well as the system of ex ante control in which people directly participate.
Abstract
Today, the reason why the prosecution is pegged as an object of reformation is that the prosecution fails to clear off its past history that it neglected its duty and that it was appropriated for other purposes. In the process of preparing the statute criminal procedure law, to remedy the malformed prosecution power, especially a misuse and an abuse of the authority to prosecute, a system of application for a ruling was created. However, neglecting the system and leaving it not to function well through a revision of criminal procedure law for the worse, the prosecution has brought the system to its knees. Moreover, the appeal system that the prosecution is for itself internally preparing as a control scheme also has had obvious limits, and the checks by constitutional trials also have not surpassed the symbolic meanings because of various restrictions. However, after getting out of authoritarianism, our society, on the road to democracy, achieved people’s participation in criminal trials, and, even though nobody can easily prejudge how situations of future discussions will evolve,it is obvious that people’s control over the prosecution’s authority to prosecute is in anyway inevitable. Therefore, if, ruminating on the true implied meaning of people’s participation,the prosecution want to re-start as a trustworthy government institution, it should run concurrently the existing system of ex post control as well as the system of ex ante control in which people directly participate.
참고문헌 (32)
- 국회도서관, "한말근대법령자료집(Ⅰ)" (1972)
- "2011 범죄백서", 법무연수원, ~ (2012)
- "형사소송법제정자료집", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (1990)
- 검사의 불기소처분 실태와 개선방안, "고경희", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2006)
- 김성규, "사인소추주의의 제도적 현상과 수용가능성", 외법논집, 34(1), pp.131~148 (2010), 법학연구소
- 김재봉, "기소절차와 시민참여 방안", 법학논총, 28(4), pp.283~307 (2011), 법학연구소
- 김진환, "사법개혁의 방향", 저스티스, 통권 : 118 (2010), 한국법학원
- 김태명, "검찰시민위원회 및 기고심사회 제도에 대한 비판적 고찰: 미국의 대배심제도와 일본의 검찰심사회제도를 참고하여", 형사정책연구, 21(4), pp.149~192 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
- 김태명, "다시 개정되어야 할 재정신청제도", 형사정책연구, 21(2), pp.83~133 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
- 문준영, "검찰중립과 화강 최대교: 임영신 상공부장관 독직사건과 최대교", 법학연구, 25 (2007), 전북대학교 법학연구소
- 문준영, "헌정 초기의 정치와 사법: 제2대 검찰총장 김익진의 삶과 “검찰독립” 문제", 법사학연구, (34), pp.179~217 (2006), 한국법사학회
- 문준영, "검찰제도의 연혁과 현대적 의미", 비교형사법연구, 8(1(2)), pp.669~698 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
- 문준영, "한국 검찰제도의 역사적 형성에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2004
- 박미숙, "개정 형사소송법상 재정신청제도의 효율적 운용방향", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.705~740 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 박현정, "日本의 檢察審査會制度에 관한 考察", 법학논총, 16(2), pp.389~412 (2009), 법학연구원
- 바람직한 검찰개혁의 방향, "백광훈", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2003)
- 서보학, "검찰공화국, 대한민국" (2011), 삼인
- 서보학, "검찰의 현주소와 법치주의의 위기", 법과사회, (39), pp.83~109 (2010), 법과사회이론학회
- 형사사법개혁의 쟁점과 동향 21세기 형사사법개혁의 방향과 대국민 법률서비스 개선방안(Ⅱ), "신동운", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2004)
- 신동운, "일제하의 예심제도에 관하여", 법학, 27(1) (1986), 울대학교 법학연구소
- 윤영철, "검찰개혁방안(2010.6)의 문제점과 개선방향에 관한 소고", 법학논총, 17(2), pp.79~107 (2010), 법학연구원
- 윤영철, "검사의 기소재량권에 대한 통제제도의 현황과 사전적·민주적 통제방안에 관한 소고", 법학논고, (30), pp.315~352 (2009), 법학연구원
- 재판 전 단계에서의 국민참여방안에 관한 연구, "윤지영", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2011)
- 李石淵, "檢事의 不起訴處分에 대한 憲法訴願 硏究", 박사, 법학, pp.1991
- 이완규, "개정법상 재정신청제도의 몇 가지 쟁점", 법조, 57(2), pp.132~193 (2008), 법조협회
- 이호중, "검찰에 대한 민주적 통제와 검찰개혁의 과제", 서강법학, 9(2) (2007), 서강대학교법학연구소
- 정한중, "시민참여형 공소권통제제도의 모색", 법학연구, 12(1), pp.218~246 (2009), 법학연구소
- 조기영, "재정신청제도의 전망과 과제", 형사법의 신동향, (14) (2008), 대검찰청
- 최병각, "기소재량의 확장과 통제", 동아법학, (43), pp.637~663 (2009), 법학연구소
- 허일태, "검찰중립화방안: 검찰권행사의 공정성 담보를 위한 대책", 동아법학, 30 (2002), 동아대학교 법학연구소
- 허일태, "검찰과 사법경찰의 법왜곡행위에 대한 대책", 법학논총, (4) (1998), 조선대학교 법학연구원
- 하태훈, "검찰권 통제 및 검찰제도 개혁 방안", 법과사회, (37), pp.91~112 (2009), 법과사회이론학회