정식재판절차와 불이익변경금지원칙
The Ordinary Procedure for Minor Offense Case Proceeding and Prohibition of Judgement Disadvantageous to Defendant
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Two solutions is presented as the ways to cope with criminal case to be on the increase. First solution is expanding of manpower and resources of jurisdiction, second solution is efficinet application of limited manpower and resources of jurisdiction. A more realistic solution is the letter. The manpower and material resources of jurisdiction can be invested in important cases, because of a simple proceeding for minor offense case. But principle of choice and concentration is in jeopardy. The rate of ordinary procedure for minor offense cases is increasing continuously now. Owing to these circumstances, the ordinary procedure is facing vast criminal cases and a simple procedure for minor offense case cannot perform it's inherent roles. This phenomenon is mostly caused by application of the prohibition of judgement disadvantageous to defendant to the ordinary procedure for minor offense cases. Due to it, a simple procedure for minor offense cases lose it's role, namely, controls of input cases for ordinary procedure. Provision of Korean Criminal Procedure Law §457-2 - in a case where a formal trial is demanded no penalty more severe than that imposed by the summary order shall be pronounced - should be abolished. Major reasons are as follows. This principle is for guarantee of the right of appeal to higher court, not for court of same stage. And §457-2 violates general principles of procedure in a public trial. And then application of the prohibition of judgement disadvantageous to defendant to the ordinary procedure causes the defendant to abuse his own right. Above all things, §457-2 is the regulation that violates lawsuit economy.
Abstract
Two solutions is presented as the ways to cope with criminal case to be on the increase. First solution is expanding of manpower and resources of jurisdiction, second solution is efficinet application of limited manpower and resources of jurisdiction. A more realistic solution is the letter. The manpower and material resources of jurisdiction can be invested in important cases, because of a simple proceeding for minor offense case. But principle of choice and concentration is in jeopardy. The rate of ordinary procedure for minor offense cases is increasing continuously now. Owing to these circumstances, the ordinary procedure is facing vast criminal cases and a simple procedure for minor offense case cannot perform it's inherent roles. This phenomenon is mostly caused by application of the prohibition of judgement disadvantageous to defendant to the ordinary procedure for minor offense cases. Due to it, a simple procedure for minor offense cases lose it's role, namely, controls of input cases for ordinary procedure. Provision of Korean Criminal Procedure Law §457-2 - in a case where a formal trial is demanded no penalty more severe than that imposed by the summary order shall be pronounced - should be abolished. Major reasons are as follows. This principle is for guarantee of the right of appeal to higher court, not for court of same stage. And §457-2 violates general principles of procedure in a public trial. And then application of the prohibition of judgement disadvantageous to defendant to the ordinary procedure causes the defendant to abuse his own right. Above all things, §457-2 is the regulation that violates lawsuit economy.
참고문헌 (55)
- 김재봉, "약식절차 개선방안에 관한 연구", 형사법연구, 21(3), pp.23~56 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 곽규홍, "경미사건의 효율적 처리방안", 형사정책, 15(2)
- 신동운, "신형사소송법"
- 이재상, "신형사소송법(제2판)"
- 차용석, "형사소송법(제3판)"
- 이은모, "형사소송법"
- 신현주, "형사소송법(신정2판)", pp.836~
- 이영란, "한국형사소송법", pp.972~
- 배종대, "형사소송법(제7판)"
- "사법연감, <도표 25> 형사사건 종류별 구성", ~ (2009)
- "사법연감, <도표 25> 형사사건 종류별 구성", ~ (2008)
- 경미사건 신속처리절차 신설방안에 관한 연구. in: 신속처리절차에 관한 연구, "차경환", 32~, pp.미래기획단 연구총서Ⅱ
- 손동권, "경죄처벌절차의 최근 입법동향에 관한 고찰", 한국공안행정학회보, (22), pp.15~40 (2006), 한국공안행정학회
- 간이형사재판제도의 효율화 방안, "황태정", 59~, pp.한국형사정책연구원 연구총서 04-37
- 이동희, "경미범죄의 효율적 처리방안- 일본의 경미범죄 처리제도의 비교법적 시사점을 중심으로-", 형사정책, 15(2), pp.6~384 (2003), 한국형사정책학회
- 손동권, "경죄처리절차의 개선방안에 관한 연구", 치안논총, 24, pp.139~
- 이경렬, "약식명령에 대한 정식재판의 청구와 불이익변경금지원칙의 적용", 비교형사법연구, 11(1), pp.301~328 (2009), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김희옥, "불이익변경금지의 원칙(상)", 사법행정, (319)
- 손동권, "형사소송법", pp.795~
- 백형구, "알기쉬운 형사소송법(제2판)", pp.468~
- "대법원 1999.1.15. 선고 98도2550", ~
- 강구진, "불이익변경금지의 윈칙", 사법행정, 23(3)
- 신양균, "형사소송법(제2판)", pp.941~
- 임동규, "형사소송법(제4판)", pp.694~
- "대법원 1964.9.17. 선고 64도298", ~
- "대법원 2007.7.13. 2007도 3448", ~
- 사법개혁위원회, "사법개혁위원회 자료집(Ⅲ)", pp.409~
- 경죄사건의 신속처리절차 도입방안(의결사항), "사법제도개혁추진위원회", 10~
- 하창우, "신속처리절차등에 대한 의견서(2)", 경죄사건의 신속처리절차 전문가토론회(Ⅱ)자료, pp.6~7 (2005)
- 최종일, "불이익변경금지의 원칙", 사법행정, 10(2), pp.48~
- "대판 1984.2.14, 83도3156", ~
- "대판 1968.9.3, 68도895", ~
- "대판 1967.2.7, 66도1699", ~
- "대판 1997.7.8, 97도939", ~
- "대판 2006.8.25, 2005도5105", ~
- "대판 1967.11.21, 67도1185", ~
- "대판 1993.12.10, 93도2711", ~
- "대판 1977.3.22, 77도67", ~
- "대판 1990.4.10, 90도16", ~
- "대판 1994.1.11, 93도2894", ~
- "대판 1998.3.26, 97도1716", ~
- 한영수, "불이익변경여부의 판단기준", 형사판례연구, 8, pp.526~
- 이기헌, "불이익변경금지의 내용", 형사판례연구, 2, pp.349~
- 이존걸, "불이익변경 여부의 객관적·구체적 판단기준", 형사법연구, (23), pp.176~197 (2005), 한국형사법학회
- 정준섭, "형의 불이익변경 여부의 판단기준", 중앙법학, 10(3), pp.85~115 (2008), 중앙법학회
- "대판 1999.11.26, 99도3776", ~
- "대판 1966.9.2, 선고 66도1026", ~
- "헌재결 2005.3.31, 2004헌가27", ~
- "서울지방법원 북부지원 1998.3.27, 97고단3569", ~
- "서울지방법원 1998. 7.15, 98노3266", ~
- "형사소송법 제·개정 자료집(상)", ~
- 사법제도개혁추진위원회 기획추진단, "경죄사건의 신속처리절차 도입방안(설명자료)", ~
- 이상호, "바람직한 신속처리절차의 구조", 경죄사건의 신속처리절차 전문가토론회(Ⅱ)자료, pp.12~
- 오종근, "영업범과 약식명령의 불이익변경금지", 비교형사법연구, 3, pp.409~
- "사법연감, <표 96> 형사공판사건의 평균처리기간", ~ (2009)