본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

개정 형사소송법상 공판준비절차

Preparatory Proceedings in Korean Criminal Procedure Act

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The purpose of preparatory proceedings is to find out intensive and effective judicial proceedings of trial date subject to realization of court-oriented trials. The preparatory proceedings can keep point of issue as well as evidence of the case in order in advance to make judicial proceedings plan and to help have effective criminal trial: But, the preparatory proceedings may have preliminary procedure being similar to judicial proceedings to produce form of trial procedure and to have infringement upon defendant's basic rights of the Constitution such as refusal rights of statement and to require careful approach of formation and operation of the system. The preparatory proceedings does not assert nor evidence substance of a case in accordance with the principle of exclusion of presupposition, and it shall not deal with important matters that may have influence upon trials in the future, for instance, permission of changes of indictment, ruling on application for evidence and decision on the discovery, etc. And, the protocol in preparation for the trial that is admitted to have absolute admissibility of evidence shall exclude substance and fill out matters that are required to make issues of a case and to keep evidence in order and to make plan of evidence. The regulation of submission in writing at preparatory proceedings may have infringement upon refusal rights of statement of the defendant so that the defendant shall be allowed to be given help from a lawyer at submission in writing: In particular, the written opinion shall not ask for statement on admission of the facts concerning the public prosecution. And, decision on submission to the preparatory proceedings had better reflect concerned party's ideas through either hearing of concerned party's ideas or appeal of dissatisfaction of court judgment, and standard of the submission should be made to obtain forecast of sending to the court. The preparatory proceedings may have the greatest difference of legal effects at prohibition of post-application of evidence. In this regard, a way should be found out to respect regulations of existing laws and to lessen adverse effects of regulations of prohibition of post-application of evidence as much as possible. When the court admits of needs, it can investigate evidence at its discretion or alleviate standards of interpretation of reasons of the exception at prima facie evidence: Otherwise, the court may give concerned party an opportunity of application to the evidence after resuming preparation for the trial.

Abstract

The purpose of preparatory proceedings is to find out intensive and effective judicial proceedings of trial date subject to realization of court-oriented trials. The preparatory proceedings can keep point of issue as well as evidence of the case in order in advance to make judicial proceedings plan and to help have effective criminal trial: But, the preparatory proceedings may have preliminary procedure being similar to judicial proceedings to produce form of trial procedure and to have infringement upon defendant's basic rights of the Constitution such as refusal rights of statement and to require careful approach of formation and operation of the system. The preparatory proceedings does not assert nor evidence substance of a case in accordance with the principle of exclusion of presupposition, and it shall not deal with important matters that may have influence upon trials in the future, for instance, permission of changes of indictment, ruling on application for evidence and decision on the discovery, etc. And, the protocol in preparation for the trial that is admitted to have absolute admissibility of evidence shall exclude substance and fill out matters that are required to make issues of a case and to keep evidence in order and to make plan of evidence. The regulation of submission in writing at preparatory proceedings may have infringement upon refusal rights of statement of the defendant so that the defendant shall be allowed to be given help from a lawyer at submission in writing: In particular, the written opinion shall not ask for statement on admission of the facts concerning the public prosecution. And, decision on submission to the preparatory proceedings had better reflect concerned party's ideas through either hearing of concerned party's ideas or appeal of dissatisfaction of court judgment, and standard of the submission should be made to obtain forecast of sending to the court. The preparatory proceedings may have the greatest difference of legal effects at prohibition of post-application of evidence. In this regard, a way should be found out to respect regulations of existing laws and to lessen adverse effects of regulations of prohibition of post-application of evidence as much as possible. When the court admits of needs, it can investigate evidence at its discretion or alleviate standards of interpretation of reasons of the exception at prima facie evidence: Otherwise, the court may give concerned party an opportunity of application to the evidence after resuming preparation for the trial.

참고문헌 (23)

  1. "헌법재판소 1996.12.26. 선고 94헌바1 결정", ~
  2. 이승현, "참여재판제도와 공판전준비절차", pp.58~61 (2006), 한국형사정책연구원
  3. "개정 형사소송법", pp.164~165 (2007), 법무부
  4. 신동운, "신형사소송법" (2008), 법문사
  5. 이은모, "형사소송법", pp.414~ (2010), 박영사
  6. 천진호, "형소법의 개정안과 공판중심주의의 올바른 자리매김", 공판중심주의 확립을 위한 형사소송법 개정안 공청회(2005.06.24) 자료집, pp.162~, 사법제도개혁추진위원회
  7. 권오걸, "현행 형사소송법과 개정 법률안에서의 공판준비절차의 검토", 형사법연구, (25), pp.355~378 (2006), 한국형사법학회
  8. "법무부 형사소송법 개정안에 대한 한국형사법학회의 의견(2006.02.14), 한국형사법학회", ~ (2006)
  9. 최창영, "공판에서의 형사소송법의 진단", 현행 형사소송법의 진단과 개정방향(2010년도 한국형사소송법학회 춘계학술대회(2010.06.05) 자료집), 한국형사소송법학회
  10. 권순민, "공판준비기일의 합리적 운용방안에 대한 연구", 형사법연구, 20(1), pp.167~190 (2008), 한국형사법학회
  11. 김현석, "공판중심주의 실현을 위한 법정심리절차", 사법, 1(3), pp.71~159 (2008), 사법발전재단
  12. , 한국비교형사법학회 2010년 추계학술대회(2010.11.06) 박승혜 판사의 토론문
  13. "증거개시 및 공판준비절차, 대검찰청, 2007", 12, 2007
  14. , 2006. 9.25. 국회 제262회 제8차 법제사법위원회(바람직한 형사사법절차에 관한 공청회) 회의록 중 이재상 교수, 백형구 변호사의 진술(신양균(編), 형사소송법 제‧개정 자료집(하), pp.1971~ (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
  15. 민영성, "공판중심주의와 공정한 재판", 법조, 55(2), pp.94~126 (2006), 법조협회
  16. 민영성, "공판중심주의의 활성화 방안", 한국형사법학회 2005년 하계학술대회(2005.06.25) 자료집, pp.5~
  17. 차동언, "사개추위안의 공판준비절차에 대한 검토", 비교형사법연구, 8(1(2)), pp.383~406 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
  18. 신양균, "헌법상 적법절차의 형사소송법에서의 구현", 제1회 동아시아 형사사법 국제학술회의 -형사사법의 정비방안-(한국비교형사법학회‧한국형사정책연구원 공동학술회의(2006.01) 자료집), pp.513~
  19. 이재상, "신형사소송법(제2판)" (2008), 박영사
  20. 노명선, "일본의 새로운 형사재판절차 -공판전정리절차 시행을 중심으로-", 형사법의 신동향, (3), pp.92~ (2006)
  21. 이시윤, "신민사소송법(제3판)", pp.309~ (2006), 박영사
  22. , 2007. 3.26, 제266회 국회 법제사법위원회(법안심사 제1소위원회) 회의록 제1호
  23. 방희선, "개편안의 문제점 -실무상 관행을 중심으로-", 공판중심주의 확립을 위한 형사소송법 개정안 공청회(2005.06.24) 자료집, pp.95~ (2005), 사법제도개혁추진위원회

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (28건)