본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

경미사건 처리절차에 관한 비교법적 고찰

A Comparative Study on Procedures to Deal with Petty Crimes

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Most advanced countries treat petty crimes and cases beyond controversy, which could occur in large numbers by setting up separate procedures or easing ordinary ones. To cope with petty crimes, Korea also has special procedures: informal proceedings by written reviews, summary conviction, and simplicity trial for cases without argument due to a confession at the court. However, these procedures have been criticized because of their respective problems. Even if the current procedures were improved, a congestion of criminal cases would not be effectively handled. The most fundamental way to expediting the processing of petty crimes would be to increase manpower for criminal judiciary and obtain enough physical resources. However, limited budget restricts possible options especially when jury trial, which has been practiced since January 2008, is supposed to go into full effect in 2013. Thus, the discussion about this issue focuses on controlling the total number of cases flowing into criminal procedures or on allocating limited judicial resources efficiently: to establish the principle of selection and concentration in criminal procedure, there are fundamental restrictions with the existing speedy procedure. Hence it is demanded a new speedy procedure functioning as a filter to cases should be put into trial proceedings. The purpose of this dissertation is to propose a model legislation to deal with petty crimes after examining legislative examples from other countries and examining which of them are relevant to Korea. This dissertation attempts to study the legislative examples abroad in order to seek for a new speedy procedure for Korea. To decide which system can be introduced or referred, we should deliberate on not only each specific system but also its judicial foundation on which it exists. As a result of substantial introduction of elements of the adversary system, basic structure of Korean criminal procedure appears to be a hybrid between the inquisitorial system and the adversary system. However, the basic structure of our criminal judicial system is closer to that of Germany or Japan than that of Britain or America, in that our system was heavily influenced by civil law countries in the process of modern legislation. Therefore, this dissertation first inquires into the system from countries with the Continental law heritage. In particular we could find many references from the Japanese system, so this study gives more concentration on the Japanese summary procedure. But in planning the speedy procedure, the Japanese system was modeled after the arraignment of the United States. In addition, the new German and French laws were also modeled after the American system with efficiency in mind. Therefore, this dissertation selects the arraignment as the fundamental structure while attempting to transform it for our present legal system. After all, when the arraignment is introduced for petty crimes and total plans managing a criminal case promptly is realized, the constitutional right to have speedy trial will be guaranteed effectively.

Abstract

Most advanced countries treat petty crimes and cases beyond controversy, which could occur in large numbers by setting up separate procedures or easing ordinary ones. To cope with petty crimes, Korea also has special procedures: informal proceedings by written reviews, summary conviction, and simplicity trial for cases without argument due to a confession at the court. However, these procedures have been criticized because of their respective problems. Even if the current procedures were improved, a congestion of criminal cases would not be effectively handled. The most fundamental way to expediting the processing of petty crimes would be to increase manpower for criminal judiciary and obtain enough physical resources. However, limited budget restricts possible options especially when jury trial, which has been practiced since January 2008, is supposed to go into full effect in 2013. Thus, the discussion about this issue focuses on controlling the total number of cases flowing into criminal procedures or on allocating limited judicial resources efficiently: to establish the principle of selection and concentration in criminal procedure, there are fundamental restrictions with the existing speedy procedure. Hence it is demanded a new speedy procedure functioning as a filter to cases should be put into trial proceedings. The purpose of this dissertation is to propose a model legislation to deal with petty crimes after examining legislative examples from other countries and examining which of them are relevant to Korea. This dissertation attempts to study the legislative examples abroad in order to seek for a new speedy procedure for Korea. To decide which system can be introduced or referred, we should deliberate on not only each specific system but also its judicial foundation on which it exists. As a result of substantial introduction of elements of the adversary system, basic structure of Korean criminal procedure appears to be a hybrid between the inquisitorial system and the adversary system. However, the basic structure of our criminal judicial system is closer to that of Germany or Japan than that of Britain or America, in that our system was heavily influenced by civil law countries in the process of modern legislation. Therefore, this dissertation first inquires into the system from countries with the Continental law heritage. In particular we could find many references from the Japanese system, so this study gives more concentration on the Japanese summary procedure. But in planning the speedy procedure, the Japanese system was modeled after the arraignment of the United States. In addition, the new German and French laws were also modeled after the American system with efficiency in mind. Therefore, this dissertation selects the arraignment as the fundamental structure while attempting to transform it for our present legal system. After all, when the arraignment is introduced for petty crimes and total plans managing a criminal case promptly is realized, the constitutional right to have speedy trial will be guaranteed effectively.

참고문헌 (57)

  1. 법무연수원, "범죄백서", pp.185~ (2009)
  2. 이동희, "경미범죄의 효율적 처리방안- 일본의 경미범죄 처리제도의 비교법적 시사점을 중심으로-", 형사정책, 15(2), pp.6~384 (2003), 한국형사정책학회
  3. 독일의 신속절차에 관한 연구. in: 신속처리절차에 관한 연구, "김학석", 검찰미래기획단, 168~, pp.미래기획단 연구총서 Ⅱ (2006)
  4. 간이형사재판제도의 효율화 방안, "황태정", 한국형사정책연구원, 38~ (2004)
  5. 한영수, "즉결심판제도에 대한 비판적 고찰", 형사정책연구, 9(1), pp.73~ (1998), 한국형사정책연구원
  6. 김종구, "형사사법개혁론 - 새로운 패러다임의 비교법적 모색" (2004), 법문사
  7. 경미사건의 간이처리절차에 관한 비교법적 연구 - 독일‧일본의 구검찰청 제도를 중심으로 -, "조병윤", 법무부, ~ (2000)
  8. 구회근, "독일에서의 경죄 처리절차 및 운용실태", 대법원 사법제도비교연구회 발표자료, pp.5~ (2003)
  9. Beulke, Werner, "Strafprozeßrecht, 6. Aufl., Rn. 526" (2002)
  10. 형사사건의 신속처리방안에 관한 연구 - 경미한 죄를 중심으로 -, "박미숙", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (1999)
  11. Fischer, "Karlsruher Kommentar, StPO, 5. Aufl., § 411 Rn. 34" (2003)
  12. Pfeiffer, Gerd, "StPO Kommentar, 4. Aufl., § 412 Rn. 9" (2005)
  13. Schroeder, Friedrich-Christian, "Strafprozeßrecht, 3. Aufl.", pp.231~ (2001)
  14. Tolksdorf, "Karlsruher Kommentar StPO, 5. Aufl., § 417 Rn. 7" (2003)
  15. Meyer-Gossner, Lutz, "StPO Kommentar 48. Aufl., § 417, Rn. 16" (2005)
  16. Scheffler, Uwe, "Kurzer Prozeß mit rechtsstaatlichen Grundsätzen?", NJW, pp.2192~ (1994)
  17. Roxin, Claus, "Strafverfahrensrecht, 24. Aufl.", pp.442~ (1995)
  18. 한명관, "프랑스 형사소송절차 개관", 법조, 통권 : 488, pp.248~ (1997), 법조협회
  19. 이철희, "프랑스유죄인정(plaider coupable)제도", 형사법의 신동향, 통권 : 1, pp.43~ (2006)
  20. 외국사법제도연구(3) - 각국의 형사사건 기소절차 -, "법원행정처", 459~ (2008)
  21. 김유철, "프랑스의 2004년 개정 형사소송법에 관한 연구 - 유죄를 인정한 경우의 특례절차를 중심으로 -. in: 해외연수 검사 논문" (2006), 검찰미래기획단
  22. 池田 修, "刑事訴訟法講義(第2版)" (2006), 東京大學出版會
  23. 庭山英雄, "刑事訴訟法(第3版)" (2006), 靑林書院
  24. 대검찰청, "일본의 경미사범 처리", pp.9~10 (1998), 검찰제도개혁위원회
  25. 三井誠, "입문 일본형사수속법" (2003), 법문사
  26. 이동희, "경미범죄의 효율적 처리방안- 일본의 경미범죄 처리제도의 비교법적 시사점을 중심으로-", 형사정책, 15(2), pp.6~384 (2003), 한국형사정책학회
  27. 신용석, "일본에서의 경죄처리절차 및 운영실태", 대법원 사법제도비교연구회 발표자료, pp.7~ (2003)
  28. 장윤석, "이른바 재청약식 시범 시행기: 약식절차의 개선을 위한 제언", 법조, pp.169~ (1998), 법조협회
  29. 司法制度改革審議會, "司法制度改革審議會意見書 - 21世紀の日本を支える司法制度", ~ (2001)
  30. Yale Kamisar, "Morden Criminal Procedure, 11th Edition", pp.7~ (2005), Thomson West
  31. 박삼봉, "미국 주 사법제도 개관; 특히 관할의 분배와 심급구조를 중심으로", 외국사법연수론집, 11, pp.251~253 (1994), 법원행정처
  32. Wayne R. LaFave, "Criminal Procedure, 4th Edition", pp.7~ (2004), Thomson West
  33. 로어크 M. 리드, "미국의 형사절차" (2000), 한국형사정책연구원
  34. "Judicial Business of the United States Courts 2009, Table M-2A"[URL]
  35. "Judicial Business of the United States Courts 2009, Table M-1A"[URL]
  36. Ronald Jay Allen, "Comprehensive Criminal Procedure, 2nd edition", pp.1161~ (2005)
  37. 이재상, "신형사소송법, 제2판" (2008), 박영사
  38. 강구진, "형사소송법 원론", pp.125~ (1982), 학연사
  39. 차용석, "형사소송법, 제2판", pp.62~ (2004), 세영사
  40. 백형구, "형사소송법", pp.47~ (1998), 박영사
  41. 손동권, "형사소송법", pp.30~ (2008), 세창출판사
  42. 신현주, "형사소송법, 신정2판", pp.48~ (2002), 박영사
  43. 신동운, "형사소송법, 제4판" (2007), 법문사
  44. 신양균, "형사소송법, 제2판", pp.56~ (2004), 법문사
  45. 이완규, "형사소송법특강", pp.29~ (2006), 법문사
  46. 임동규, "형사소송법, 제4판", pp.16~ (2006), 법문사
  47. 진계호, "형사소송법", pp.32~ (2000), 형설출판사
  48. 유죄답변협상의 도입방안에 대한 연구, "조국", 대검찰청, 134~135 (2006)
  49. Edward W. Cleary, "McCormick on Evidence, 5th Edition", pp.212~ (1999)
  50. Rothstein, "Evidence, 2nd Edition", pp.293~ (1983)
  51. 배종대, "형사소송법, 제7판", pp.699~ (2006), 홍문사
  52. "대법원 1966. 7. 26. 66도634 전원합의체판결", ~
  53. "대법원 1981. 7. 7. 81도1314 판결", ~

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (15건)