본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

형사재심에 대한 비판적인 고찰

Critical Review on Criminal Retrial

권영법
안암법학회 (Anam Law Association)|2011.09|안암법학 (Anam Law Review)|제36호|pp. 199-237|DOI 10.22822/alr..36.201109.199

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

법적 안정성(Rechtssicherheit)재심(Wiederfnahme)인신보호영장(writ of habeas corpus)수렴이론(Konvergenztheorie)라드브루흐공식(Radbrusche Formel)헌법합치적 해석(verfassungsgemäße Auslegung)의심스러울 때에는 피고인의 이익으로(in dubio pro reo)합리적 의심의 여지가 없는 증명(proof beyond a reasonable doubt)개연성(Wahrscheinlichkeit)진실(Truth)

초록

In the event of misjudgment in the court, disproving evidence must be possible to be submitted after the case. Since the courts in the country have been holding a very strict stance in their interpretation of reasons for retrial starting, retrial system, which is a disproving system after the case, couldn’t be applied properly in the country. In terms of legislative chronicle, the current retrial system seems to have embraced retrial practice of France in its content. From perspective of comparative law, France and Germany more widely acknowledge reasons for retrial compared with Korea. Low acceptance rate for retrial in the Great Britain and the US must have greatly been influenced by their application of adversary system in judicial procedure and strict evidence principle. Japan has been broadening its interpretation of reasons for retrial starting since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1975. In retrial, two criteria of justice and stability of law as ideals of criminal procedures are sometimes in conflict. However, the Radbruch Formula can’t be applied to retrial, and justice and stability of law is interpreted as keeping an equilibrium by the will and decision of judges to some degrees. In terms of methodology for interpretation of law, four current criteria of interpretation have the equal value but if they are in conflict, teleological interpretation precedes others, in which case constitutional interpretation must be applied. In its interpretation of reason for retrial opening, newness of evidence is deemed necessary only to the courts. In judging clearness of evidence, the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo' must be applied and also judgment must be done by synthesis of new and previous evidences based on the approach of general evaluation. While the courts maintain more flexible stance on the general evaluation these days, they still interpret reasons of retrial starting strictly. The current circumstances require judges to orient to more positive and progressive postures.

Abstract

In the event of misjudgment in the court, disproving evidence must be possible to be submitted after the case. Since the courts in the country have been holding a very strict stance in their interpretation of reasons for retrial starting, retrial system, which is a disproving system after the case, couldn’t be applied properly in the country. In terms of legislative chronicle, the current retrial system seems to have embraced retrial practice of France in its content. From perspective of comparative law, France and Germany more widely acknowledge reasons for retrial compared with Korea. Low acceptance rate for retrial in the Great Britain and the US must have greatly been influenced by their application of adversary system in judicial procedure and strict evidence principle. Japan has been broadening its interpretation of reasons for retrial starting since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1975. In retrial, two criteria of justice and stability of law as ideals of criminal procedures are sometimes in conflict. However, the Radbruch Formula can’t be applied to retrial, and justice and stability of law is interpreted as keeping an equilibrium by the will and decision of judges to some degrees. In terms of methodology for interpretation of law, four current criteria of interpretation have the equal value but if they are in conflict, teleological interpretation precedes others, in which case constitutional interpretation must be applied. In its interpretation of reason for retrial opening, newness of evidence is deemed necessary only to the courts. In judging clearness of evidence, the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo' must be applied and also judgment must be done by synthesis of new and previous evidences based on the approach of general evaluation. While the courts maintain more flexible stance on the general evaluation these days, they still interpret reasons of retrial starting strictly. The current circumstances require judges to orient to more positive and progressive postures.

참고문헌 (74)

  1. 강구진, "형사소송법원론, 초판" (1983), 학영사
  2. 권오걸, "형사소송법, 초판" (2010), 형설출판사
  3. 노명선, "형사소송법, 초판" (2009), 성균관대학교출판부
  4. 박상열, "개정판 형사소송법, 개정2판" (2009), 형설출판사
  5. 배종대, "신형사소송법, 제2판" (2009), 홍문사
  6. 손동권, "개정신판 형사소송법" (2010), 세창출판사
  7. 신양균, "신판 형사소송법, 초판" (2009), 화산미디어
  8. 이영락, "개정판 한국형사소송법, 초판" (2008), 나남
  9. 이은모, "형사소송법, 초판" (2010), 박영사
  10. 이재상, "신형사소송법, 제2판" (2011), 박영사
  11. "2009 사법연감" (2009), 법원행정처
  12. 권영법, "형사소송의 이념", 저스티스, (124), pp.262~285 (2011), 한국법학원
  13. 권오걸, "정의론에 관한 소고", 법학연구, 7 (2001)
  14. 권오걸, "재심개시사유로서의 증거의 신규성과 명백성의 의미와 판단기준", 형사법연구, 22(1), pp.125~162 (2010), 한국형사법학회
  15. 김상겸, "헌법에 있어서 정의에 관한 연구", 비교법연구, 5 (2005)
  16. 김영한, "아루터어 카우프만의 인격적 법이론", 법학논총, 26(4) (2009)
  17. 김재윤, "사형 구제제도의 현황과 완비", 비교형사법연구, 9(2), pp.733~760 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
  18. 김하열, "법률해석과 헌법재판:법원의 규범통제와 헌법재판소의 법률해석", 저스티스, 108, pp.5~53 (2008), 한국법학원
  19. 김희수, "형사소송법 상 재심이유에 대한 고찰-형사소송법420조 제5호, 제422조를 중심으로-", 원광법학, 23(2), pp.199~219 (2007), 법학연구소
  20. 김형만, "형사절차상의 오판원인", 비교형사법연구, 9(1), pp.343~366 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
  21. 민영성, "재심사유로서 증거의 신규성과 명백성의 인정 및 판단방법", 법조, 547 (2002)
  22. 민영성, "오판구제수단으로서의 형사재심의 재인식", 성균관법학, 21(1), pp.97~119 (2009), 법학연구소
  23. 박상열, "‘합리적 의심의 증명’의 연혁적 고찰", 광운비교법학, (창간) (2000)
  24. 박승호, "하버마스의 철학 형성과 진리이념", 현상과 인식, 7(3) (1983)
  25. 박종대, "하버마스의 의사소통적 행위이론에 관한 연구", 세계화의 자기정체성 (2010)
  26. 박찬주, "자유심증에 대한 새로운 이해", 법학논총 (2007), 조선대
  27. 박태진, "기억과 진실, 그리고 뇌: 인지심리학적 고찰", 독일어문학, 17(2), pp.299~319 (2009), 한국독일어문학회
  28. 부택훈, "오판의 구제와 재심제도에 관한 연구-사형선고사건을 중심으로", 박사, pp.2001
  29. 선종수, "형사재심제도의 합리적 운영방안", 동아법학, (45), pp.325~359 (2009), 법학연구소
  30. 안성태, "라드브루흐의 상대주의 법철학", 법학논고, 12 (1978)
  31. 임 경, "형사재심제도의 연구", 석사, pp.1984
  32. 이구슬, "J. Habermas의 진리합의론", 철학논무, 15 (1985)
  33. 이용식, "형사재심제도의 한계와 구조에 관한 재조명", 형사법연구, 19(3-하), pp.755~776 (2007), 한국형사법학회
  34. 이재승, "법철학의 모색과 탐구(심헌섭박사75세기념논문집). In: 라드브루흐 공식" (2011), 법문사
  35. 이존걸, "재심이유의 일반론에 관한 고찰", 원광법학, 23(1), pp.123~139 (2007), 법학연구소
  36. 이존걸, "형사소송법상 재심의 특별사유에 대한 연구", 법학연구, 27 (2007)
  37. 이종수, "재심제도와 사법권 ― 과거청산의 과제를 중심으로 ―", 헌법학연구, 14(4), pp.77~106 (2008), 한국헌법학회
  38. 이찬엽, "재심의 제문제와 합리적 운영에 관한 비판적 고찰", 중앙법학, 8(1), pp.387~412 (2006), 중앙법학회
  39. 정태욱, "법절차의 정의가치", 법철학연구, 1 (1998)
  40. 최석윤, "한국형법학의 새로운 지평(심온김일수교수화갑기념논문집). In: 형법 해석의 한계-허용된 해석과 금지된 유추의 상관관계" (2006)
  41. 홍영기, "한국형법학의 새로운 지평(심온김일수화갑기념논문집). In: 법이념관점에서 죄형법정주의" (2006), 박영사
  42. Arthur Kaufmann, "법철학" (2010), 나남
  43. Edward Hallett Carr, "역사란 무엇인가" (1999)
  44. Frank Saliger, "라드브루흐 공식과 법치국가 제2판" (2011), 세창출판사
  45. Gerd Pfeiffer, "Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung" (2003), C. H. Beck
  46. Jefferson L. Ingramm, "Criminal Evidnce, 10th ed" (2009), LexisNexis
  47. Kamisar, "Modern Criminal Procedure Cases-Comments-Questions", pp.2008, Thomsom
  48. Klaus Volk, "GrundKurs-StPO" (2010), C. H. Beck
  49. Kristian Kühl, "StGB, 27, Aufl" (2011)
  50. 허일태, "법학방법론" (2000), 세종출판사
  51. Lempert, "A Modern Approach To Evidence" (2000), West Group
  52. Neubauer, "America's Courts and The Criminal Justice System, 10th ed" (2009), Wadsworth
  53. Radke, "Strafprozessordnung - Kommentar" (2011), Franz Vahlen München
  54. Rolando V. Der Carmen, "Criminal Procedure, 8th ed" (2010), Wadsworth
  55. Sanders, "Criminal Justice, 4th ed" (2010), Oxford
  56. Ulrich Eisenberg, "Beweisrecht der StPO" (2011), C. H. Beck
  57. Weaver, "Criminal Procedure, 3rd ed", pp.2008, Thomson
  58. Arthur Kaufmann, "Die Radbrusche Formel vom gesetzlichen Unrecht und übergesetzlichen Recht in der Diskussion um das im Namen der DDR begangene Unrecht" (1995), NJW
  59. Bottke, "Wiederaufnahmeverfahren" (1981), NStW
  60. Curt Freiher Von Stackelberg, "Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit im Strafverfahren. In: Beweisprobleme im strafprozessualen Wiederaugnahme" (1984)
  61. Gössel, "Über fehlerhafte Rechtsanwendung und Tatsachenbegriff im Wiedernahmeverfahren" (1993), NStW
  62. Graßhof, "Auswirkungen der neuen Sitzblockade-Entscheidung des BVerfG-Wiederaufnahme aller bisherigen Verfahren oder nur nach der ersten verfassungsgerichtlichen Entscheidung ergangenen Strafurteile" (1995), NJW
  63. Gustav Radbruch, "Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht"
  64. Hanns Dünnebier, "Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit im Strafverfahren. In: Radbruch Gesamtausgabe Bd.Ⅲ" (1984)
  65. Hellenrand, "Rückgängigmachung einer Gesamtstrafen mittels Wiedernahme" (2004), NStZ
  66. Küper, "Verfassungswirdige und verfassungskonforme Auslegung des ∮142 StGB" (2008), NStW
  67. Peter Rieß, "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Reform des Rechts Pechts des Wiedraufnahme im Strafverfahren" (1994), NStW
  68. Stefani, "재심제도에 대한 비판적 고찰", 인천법학논총, 5 (2000)
  69. Walther J. Habscheid, "입증책임과 입증의 정도-대륙법과 영미법의 비교", 서울대학교 법학, 32(1) (1991)
  70. 渡辺直行, "刑事訴訟法 初版" (2010), 成文堂
  71. 安富 潔, "刑事訴訟法" (2009), 三省堂
  72. 田口寸一, "刑事訴訟法, 第五版" (2009), 弘文堂
  73. 前田雅英, "刑事訴訟實務① 基礎記錄扁" (2010), 弘文堂
  74. 池田 修, "刑事訴訟法講義, 第3版" (2010), 東京大學出版會

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (22건)

시장질서의 헌법적 의미와 구체화 방향이장희pp. 1-52정신보건법상 보호의무자에 의한 입원하명호pp. 53-89경찰법상의 위험개념의 변화에 관한 법적 고찰 - 전통적 위험개념의 작별(?) -박병욱, 서정범pp. 91-129조세소송에서의 증명책임 분배방안에 대한 연구신호영pp. 131-173독립행위가 경합하는 동시범에서 결과귀속의 문제손동권pp. 175-198
원문 보기