본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

기소절차와 시민참여 방안

Civil Participation in Prosecutorial Procedure

3

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Recently, many people have doubt, whether the prosecutorial power has been properly exercised. It seems that the dissatisfaction of people with the abuse of prosecutors’ power is day by day increasing. The checking system over the prosecutorial process, for example,application for judicial review on non indictment (quasi prosecution), reviewing committee on non indictment has worked, but it is not sufficient for the control over the improper exercise of prosecutorial power. Therefore, as the alternative of the existing control system,we give attention to the civil participation in the prosecutorial procedure. The civil participation in the criminal process is important in two ways, in the first place the fair exercise of prosecutorial power can be guaranteed, and secondly the self management of their own things can be realized. The good examples of civil participation in the prosecution are the gran jury system in the U.S. and the Reviewing Committee on Prosecution in Japan. 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. In Korea, the civil committee on prosecution was introduced in the prosecutorial office last year and three reform bills for the introduction of civil control system were submitted to the legislature. In these kinds of attempts at the control over the prosecutorial power through the civil participation, two new systems should be considered. The first one is the post civil reviewing system on the non indictment, and we can make a model of the Reviewing Committee on Prosecution in Japan. The second one is the pre civil reviewing committee on the prosecution after the model of the grand jury system in the U.S. and this system can contribute to prevent improper prosecution and the evasion or delay of prosecution.

Abstract

Recently, many people have doubt, whether the prosecutorial power has been properly exercised. It seems that the dissatisfaction of people with the abuse of prosecutors’ power is day by day increasing. The checking system over the prosecutorial process, for example,application for judicial review on non indictment (quasi prosecution), reviewing committee on non indictment has worked, but it is not sufficient for the control over the improper exercise of prosecutorial power. Therefore, as the alternative of the existing control system,we give attention to the civil participation in the prosecutorial procedure. The civil participation in the criminal process is important in two ways, in the first place the fair exercise of prosecutorial power can be guaranteed, and secondly the self management of their own things can be realized. The good examples of civil participation in the prosecution are the gran jury system in the U.S. and the Reviewing Committee on Prosecution in Japan. 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. In Korea, the civil committee on prosecution was introduced in the prosecutorial office last year and three reform bills for the introduction of civil control system were submitted to the legislature. In these kinds of attempts at the control over the prosecutorial power through the civil participation, two new systems should be considered. The first one is the post civil reviewing system on the non indictment, and we can make a model of the Reviewing Committee on Prosecution in Japan. The second one is the pre civil reviewing committee on the prosecution after the model of the grand jury system in the U.S. and this system can contribute to prevent improper prosecution and the evasion or delay of prosecution.

참고문헌 (31)

  1. 김영철, "수사절차에 있어서의 국민참여", 법조, 54(2), pp.19~52 (2005), 법조협회
  2. 김진환, "사법개혁의 방향", 저스티스, (118) (2010)
  3. 김태명, "검찰시민위원회 및 기고심사회 제도에 대한 비판적 고찰: 미국의 대배심제도와 일본의 검찰심사회제도를 참고하여", 형사정책연구, 21(4), pp.149~192 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
  4. 김태명, "다시 개정되어야 할 재정신청제도", 형사정책연구, 21(2), pp.83~133 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
  5. 김택수, "프랑스 사인소추제도", 경찰법연구, 2(1) (2004)
  6. 대검찰청, "검찰개혁방안", ~ (2010)
  7. 명점식, "독일 사인소추제도", 대검찰청 미래기획단 비상임연구관 발표자료, ~, pp.발표자료 (2005)
  8. 문준영, "검찰권 행사에 대한 시민적 통제와 참여― 검사의 기소재량 통제를 위한 한국과 일본의 최근의 개혁 ―", 민주법학, (29), pp.173~208 (2005), 민주주의법학연구회
  9. 박상열, "미국의 배심제도에 관한 소고-기소배심을 중심으로-", 사법행정 (2002)
  10. 서창희, "Grand Jury 및 Immunity를 이용한 수사-미국법상 비형조적 참고인에 대하여 진술을 강제하는 방법", 해외연수검사연구논문집, 통권 : 11 (1995), 법부무
  11. 손준호, "미국의 대배심 제도 개관", 해외연수검사 연구논문집 (2006), 법부무
  12. 오경식, "미국의 기소대배심운영과 한국의 도입방안", 형사법의 신동향, (28), pp.1~30 (2010), 대검찰청
  13. 옥선기, "수사절차상 국민참여제도에 대한 비교법적 고찰", 형사법의 신동향, 통권 : 14 (2008)
  14. 윤영철, "검찰개혁방안(2010.6)의 문제점과 개선방향에 관한 소고", 법학논총, 17(2), pp.79~107 (2010), 법학연구원
  15. 윤영철, "검사의 기소재량권에 대한 통제제도의 현황과 사전적·민주적 통제방안에 관한 소고", 법학논고, (30), pp.315~352 (2009), 법학연구원
  16. 이동명, "검사의 공소권통제에 대한 시민참여제도", 법과정책, 16(2), pp.203~223 (2010), 법과정책연구소
  17. 이호중, "검찰에 대한 민주적 통제와 검찰개혁의 과제", 서강법학, 9(2) (2007)
  18. 참여연개 사법감시센터, "검찰 자체개혁안 발표에 대한 논평", ~ (2010)
  19. 표성수, "재판 전 형사절차에 있어서 국민 참여제도에 관한 연구 - 미국의 대배심제도와 일본의 검찰심사회제도를 중심으로", 저스티스, (113), pp.178~210 (2009), 한국법학원
  20. 표성수, "영미 형사사법의 구조-그 가치에 대한 새로운 이해", ~ (2004)
  21. 허철호, "수사절차 투명화를 위한 각국의 제도 및 연구동향", 해외연수검사 연구논문집, (23) (2008)
  22. 寺埼嘉博, "형사사법-검찰심사회와 배심제도", 형사정책, 13(1) (2001)
  23. 伊藤榮二, "檢察審査會法改正の經緯及び槪要について", 法律のひろば, 62(6) (2009)
  24. 三井誠, "檢察審査會制度の今後", 現代刑事法, (69) (2005)
  25. 三井誠, "檢察審査會制度の現象と課題", 法律時報, 50(9) (1978)
  26. 出口雄一, "檢察審査會法制定の經緯", 法律のひろば, 62(6) (2009)
  27. 出射義夫, "檢察の面でみた刑事訴訟法の25年", ジュリスト, (551) (1974)
  28. Renne B.Lettew, "Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presenments", Yale Law Journal, 103, pp.1333~ (1994)
  29. Sara Sun Beale, "Grand Jury Law and Practice", ~ (2004)
  30. Beulke, "Strafprozessrecht, 11", ~ (2010)
  31. Volk, "Strafprozessrecht, 3", ~ (2008)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (16건)