기소절차에 대한 시민참여제도로서 기소심사회 도입방안 -일본 검찰심사회와의 비교 ․ 검토를 중심으로-
Prosecution Review Committee as a Civil Participation System in Prosecutorial Procedure
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Many people criticize nowadays the abuse and improper exercise of prosecutorial power. The people’s standpoint to the prosecution is well expressed in the new coined words,‘grandeur prosecutor’, ‘sponsor prosecutor’. The dissatisfaction of people with the prosecutory authorities is day by day increasing. Most people think that the existing controlling over the exercise of prosecutorial process, for example, application for judicial review on non indictment (quasi prosecution), reviewing committee on non indictment, is not sufficient. Therefore, we should find new ways to secure the fairness of prosecution. A civil participation in the prosecutorial process is one of them. It is important in two ways. Firstly the fairness of prosecution can be guaranteed, and secondly the civil self governing of their own things can be realized. With the recent introduction of civil participation in the criminal trials in Korea,many people have interest in the civil control and participation in the criminal procedure. Also in the prosecutorial process, the introduction of civil participation systems is vigorously discussed. The civil committee on prosecution was recently introduced and three reform bills for the introduction of civil control system were submitted to the legislature. We can consider two typical models as the civil participation systems in the prosecution. The first one is the pre civil reviewing committee on the prosecution as the grand jury system in the U.S. The second one is the post civil reviewing system on the non indictment as the Reviewing Committee on Prosecution in Japan. Of the two models, the former is more thorough way,people can control the prosecution process. In order to minimize the side effects, this paper suggests to phase in civil participation system. In the first stage, we can introduce a post review system as the Reviewing Committee on Prosecution in Japan. So in this paper, it is in detail studied how a Prosecution Review Committee as a new post review system is introduced,for example, organization, procedure, relationship with the existing checking systems etc.
Abstract
Many people criticize nowadays the abuse and improper exercise of prosecutorial power. The people’s standpoint to the prosecution is well expressed in the new coined words,‘grandeur prosecutor’, ‘sponsor prosecutor’. The dissatisfaction of people with the prosecutory authorities is day by day increasing. Most people think that the existing controlling over the exercise of prosecutorial process, for example, application for judicial review on non indictment (quasi prosecution), reviewing committee on non indictment, is not sufficient. Therefore, we should find new ways to secure the fairness of prosecution. A civil participation in the prosecutorial process is one of them. It is important in two ways. Firstly the fairness of prosecution can be guaranteed, and secondly the civil self governing of their own things can be realized. With the recent introduction of civil participation in the criminal trials in Korea,many people have interest in the civil control and participation in the criminal procedure. Also in the prosecutorial process, the introduction of civil participation systems is vigorously discussed. The civil committee on prosecution was recently introduced and three reform bills for the introduction of civil control system were submitted to the legislature. We can consider two typical models as the civil participation systems in the prosecution. The first one is the pre civil reviewing committee on the prosecution as the grand jury system in the U.S. The second one is the post civil reviewing system on the non indictment as the Reviewing Committee on Prosecution in Japan. Of the two models, the former is more thorough way,people can control the prosecution process. In order to minimize the side effects, this paper suggests to phase in civil participation system. In the first stage, we can introduce a post review system as the Reviewing Committee on Prosecution in Japan. So in this paper, it is in detail studied how a Prosecution Review Committee as a new post review system is introduced,for example, organization, procedure, relationship with the existing checking systems etc.
참고문헌 (28)
- 김병수, "국민참여재판의 활성화 방안에 관한 연구", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.35~64 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 김재봉, "기소절차와 시민참여 방안", 법학논총, 28(4), pp.283~307 (2011), 법학연구소
- 김진환, "사법개혁의 방향", 저스티스, 통권 : 118 (2010)
- 김태명, "다시 개정되어야 할 재정신청제도", 형사정책연구, 21(2), pp.83~133 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
- 김태명, "검찰시민위원회 및 기고심사회 제도에 대한 비판적 고찰: 미국의 대배심제도와 일본의 검찰심사회제도를 참고하여", 형사정책연구, 21(4), pp.149~192 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
- 검찰개혁방안, "대검찰청", ~ (2010)
- 대검찰청, "검찰시민위원회가 전국적 구성을 완료하고 검사의 중요결정을 직접 심사하고 있습니다", ~ (2010)
- 문준영, "검찰권 행사에 대한 시민적 통제와 참여― 검사의 기소재량 통제를 위한 한국과 일본의 최근의 개혁 ―", 민주법학, (29), pp.173~208 (2005), 민주주의법학연구회
- 박상열, "미국의 배심제도에 관한 소고-기소배심을 중심으로-", 사법행정 (2002)
- 서창희, "Grand Jury 및 Immunity를 이용한 수사-미국법상 비협조적 참고인에 대하여 진술을 강제하는 방법, In 법부무 해외연수검사연구논문집 제11집" (1995)
- 안경환, "배심제와 시민의 사법참여" (2005), 집문당
- 옥선기, "수사절차상 국민참여제도에 대한 비교법적 고찰", 형사법의 신동향, 통권 : 14 (2008)
- 윤영철, "검찰개혁방안(2010.6)의 문제점과 개선방향에 관한 소고", 법학논총, 17(2), pp.79~107 (2010), 법학연구원
- 이동명, "검사의 공소권통제에 대한 시민참여제도", 법과정책, 16(2), pp.203~223 (2010), 법과정책연구소
- 이호중, "검찰에 대한 민주적 통제와 검찰개혁의 과제", 서강법학, 9(2) (2007)
- 임인규, "국민의 고소사건 재정심사 참여에 관한 법률안", 재정심사에 관한 법률안에 대한 법제사법위원회 검토보고, ~ (2007)
- 참여연대 사법감시센터, "검찰 자체개혁안 발표에 대한 논평", ~ (2010)
- 표성수, "재판 전 형사절차에 있어서 국민 참여제도에 관한 연구 - 미국의 대배심제도와 일본의 검찰심사회제도를 중심으로 -", 저스티스, (113), pp.178~210 (2009), 한국법학원
- 寺埼嘉博, "일본의 형사사법-검찰심사회와 배심제도", 형사정책, 13(1) (2001)
- 寺崎嘉搏, "検察審査会の議決への法的拘束力", 現代刑事法, 4(11) (2002)
- 三井誠, "検察審査会制度の現象と課題", 法律時報, 50(9) (1978)
- 三井誠, "検察審査会制度の今後", 現代刑事法 (2005)
- 新屋達之, "本格始動した改正検察審査会", 法律時報, 82(11) (2010)
- 伊藤栄二, "検察審査会法改正の經緯び槪要について", 法律のひろば, 62(6) (2009)
- 篠倉滿, "アメリカ大陪審とわが國の検察審査会制度", 法學セミナ, 16(7) (1972)
- 出口雄一, "検察審査会法制定の經緯-GHOにおける議論を中心に", 法律のひろば, 62(6) (2009)
- 出射義夫, "検察の面でみた刑事訴訟法の25年", ジュリスト, (551) (1974)
- Renne B. Lettew, "Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments", Yale Law Journal, 103, pp.1333~ (1994)
