국민참여재판제도의 문제점과 개선방안
The Problems and Improvement Direction of the System of Civil Participation in Criminal Trials
0
조회
0
다운로드
12
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The system of civil participation in criminal trials has been introduced and implemented by allowing common citizens to take part in the process of criminal judgment with a view to promote trust in and democratic transparency of the judicial procedures. As it was the first ever epoch-making measure in Korea to introduce such system in which public participation in judicial process is permitted, it was termed as "democratization of judicial administration" and thus much was expected to come therefrom. In fact, it should be said of the results from its implementation that nothing much could be acquired from the system as was anticipated in the beginning. One of the reasons for such dissatisfactory outcomes is because it is too abstract and comprehensive to exclude any one from participating in the procedure, leading to the fear that the court may still exercise overwhelming control over the procedure. It is encouraging, however, to note that there is positive appraisal about the system since citizens' participation in the judicial procedure can provide them with chances to learn about democracy and can prevent such critical issues as 'preferential treatment for ex-judges or -prosecutors' and 'one law for the rich, another for the poor' to occur completely. Nevertheless, there still remain such issues to be solved, for instance, as low rate of application for the system and high rate of withdrawal and exclusion because the verdict of jurors is far from being recognized as effective sentence. Moreover, sufficient inquiry into a case can not be made and verdict is predictable because hearings for fact-finding and question of law are not done clearly separated. Besides, there are also a lot more questions at issue that notice for the first instance date is usually given very imminently, jurors rarely attend trials, appeal rate is high, sexual crime victims' claim is not duly represented, etc. It is therefore suggested to impart binding force to the verdict of jurors participating in the civil trials and to specify the otherwise vague legal provisions for them. It is further solicited to assess culpability by separating hearings for fact-finding and question of law from each other in an effort to draw consent of defendants to the verdict. Besides, it is recommended to make known the significance as well importance of the system of civil participation in trials by reinforcing civil law education at every level of schools and lifelong educational institutes for the youths and adults as resources for potential jurors in the future.
Abstract
The system of civil participation in criminal trials has been introduced and implemented by allowing common citizens to take part in the process of criminal judgment with a view to promote trust in and democratic transparency of the judicial procedures. As it was the first ever epoch-making measure in Korea to introduce such system in which public participation in judicial process is permitted, it was termed as "democratization of judicial administration" and thus much was expected to come therefrom. In fact, it should be said of the results from its implementation that nothing much could be acquired from the system as was anticipated in the beginning. One of the reasons for such dissatisfactory outcomes is because it is too abstract and comprehensive to exclude any one from participating in the procedure, leading to the fear that the court may still exercise overwhelming control over the procedure. It is encouraging, however, to note that there is positive appraisal about the system since citizens' participation in the judicial procedure can provide them with chances to learn about democracy and can prevent such critical issues as 'preferential treatment for ex-judges or -prosecutors' and 'one law for the rich, another for the poor' to occur completely. Nevertheless, there still remain such issues to be solved, for instance, as low rate of application for the system and high rate of withdrawal and exclusion because the verdict of jurors is far from being recognized as effective sentence. Moreover, sufficient inquiry into a case can not be made and verdict is predictable because hearings for fact-finding and question of law are not done clearly separated. Besides, there are also a lot more questions at issue that notice for the first instance date is usually given very imminently, jurors rarely attend trials, appeal rate is high, sexual crime victims' claim is not duly represented, etc. It is therefore suggested to impart binding force to the verdict of jurors participating in the civil trials and to specify the otherwise vague legal provisions for them. It is further solicited to assess culpability by separating hearings for fact-finding and question of law from each other in an effort to draw consent of defendants to the verdict. Besides, it is recommended to make known the significance as well importance of the system of civil participation in trials by reinforcing civil law education at every level of schools and lifelong educational institutes for the youths and adults as resources for potential jurors in the future.
참고문헌 (39)
- 강구민, "국민참여재판제도의 몇 가지 개선점", 성균관법학, 24(3), pp.543~566 (2012), 법학연구소
- 강동욱, "국민참여 형사재판제도에 대한 비교법적 고찰 -대상사건과 개시절차를 중심으로-", 비교법연구, 13(1) (2013), 동국대학교 비교법학연구소
- 강동욱, "국민참여형사재판의 개시와 관련된 법원의 결정에 대한 논의", 홍익법학, 14(2), pp.525~549 (2013), 법학연구소
- 곽병선, "형사소송의 주체와 배심제도", 비교형사법연구, 6(1), pp.113~144 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김대성, "국민참여재판에서의 배심원의 양형 참여", 법학연구, 15(1), pp.185~213 (2012), 법학연구소
- 김대성, "일본의 국민참여재판제도", 법학연구, 10(3), pp.145~196 (2007), 법학연구소
- 김도협, "국민참여재판제도의 문제점과그 대안으로서의 참심제 도입방안에 관한 연구 ― 독일 참심제와의 비교법적 고찰을 통하여 ―", 공법연구, 39(4), pp.151~174 (2011), 한국공법학회
- 김병수, "국민참여재판 시행 5년과 그 구체적 형태 - 국민사법참여위원회안에 대한 비판적 검토를 중심으로 -", 형사법의 신동향, (38), pp.98~139 (2013), 대검찰청
- 김병수, "국민참여재판의 중간평가", 형사정책연구, 21(3), pp.311~348 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
- 김병수, "국민참여재판의 활성화 방안에 관한 연구", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.35~64 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 김형준, "국민참여재판제도의 운영상 문제점과 개선방안", 法學論文集, 33(1), pp.145~170 (2009), 법학연구원
- 김호겸, "국민참여재판의 활성화 방안에 관한 고찰", 법학연구, 24(2), pp.301~337 (2013), 법학연구소
- ‘국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률안’ 심사보고서, "국회", ~ (2007)
- 대법원 국민사법참여위원회, "2013 국민참여재판 제도의 최종 형태결정을 위한 공청회 자료집", ~
- 대법원, "국민사법참여위원회 국민참여재판 제도의 최종형태 결정", 보도자료, ~ (2013)
- 문일환, "국민참여재판 배심원에 대한 실무적 접근 - 배심원 선정, 평결, 양형을 중심으로 -", 저스티스, 135, pp.173~200 (2013), 한국법학원
- 박근용, "국민참여재판, 사법 민주주의의 새 장을 열다", 시민과 세계, 13 (2008), 참여연대 참여사회연구소
- 법무부, "국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률 일부개정법률(안) 입법예고", 공고 제2013-288호, ~ (2013)
- 법원행정처, "국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률 해설", ~ (2007)
- 윤상민, "우리나라 국민참여재판제도에 대한 평가", 원광법학, 24(1), pp.127~148 (2008), 법학연구소
- 이동희, "국민참여재판의 시행평가와 개선방안", 법학연구, 30, pp.219~250 (2010), 부설법학연구소
- 이은모, "현행 국민참여재판제도의 내용과 문제점 －일본의 재판원제도와의 비교를 중심으로－", 법학논총, 26(1), pp.405~426 (2009), 법학연구소
- 장중식, "우리나라 국민참여재판제도의 문제점과 개선과제", 법학연구, (36), pp.401~422 (2009), 한국법학회
- 정웅석, "배심원 선정절차에 관한 연구", 비교형사법연구, 9(2), pp.83~142 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- 정진수, "일본의 재판원 제도 - 그 성립경위와 주요내용", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.839~864 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 최관식, "국민의 사법신뢰 위기극복을 위한 한국형 국민참여재판에 대한 비판적 검토", Crisisonomy, 9(2), pp.199~214 (2013), 위기관리 이론과 실천
- 한상훈, "국민참여재판제도의 정착방안", 저스티스, (106), pp.483~534 (2008), 한국법학원
- 한인섭, "형사재판에서 배심제의 도입－그 필요성 · 가능성 · 구체적 방안은 무엇인가－", 형사정책, 14(2), pp.1~148 (2002), 한국형사정책학회
- 법률신문, "국민참여재판 3년만에 고사위기", ~ (2010)
- 법률신문, "국민 70% ‘법은 돈 · 권력 편 든다, ‘유전문죄 무전유죄’ 팽배 ···공정한 법집행에 ‘냉담’", ~ (2013)
- 중앙일보, "나꼼수 무죄, 법리 · 팩트보다 감성 평결", ~ (2013)
- 중앙일보, "또 감성평결 논란 땐 ··· 참여재판 불신 커질 것 같았다", ~ (2013)
- 중앙일보, "감성 판결 문제점 보완 지적 ··· 제도의 취지 훼손 방지에 초점", ~ (2013)
- 중앙일보, "나꼼수 같은 선거사건, 참여재판 배제", ~ (2014)
- 丸山 撤, "人間 · アメリカの司法制度" (2007), 現代人文社
- 戶刈左近, "裁判員裁判の實施狀況", 刑事法ジャ-ナル, (24) (2010)
- 白木 功, "裁判員裁判1年の課題と展望 -檢察官の立場から-", 刑事法ジャ-ナル, (24) (2010)
- Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America" (2004), Library of America
- Randolph N. Jonakait, "The American Jury System" (2003), Yale University Press