국민참여재판제도의 운영상 문제점과 개선방안

Abstract

This article deals with the problems of current lay-people participatory trial system and suggests its reformation. It can be summerized as follows. First, a lay-people participatory trial can start by application of a defendant, so to speak, formed in an opt-in way. Often, a defendant does not want or hesitates to take part in it. If a defendant does not say otherwise, a case in question should be in principle subject to a lay-people participatory trial. Therefore, the opt-out way seems to be more desirable. Also, the sort of cases subject to jury trial should be expanded. Second, in the process of jury selection, it is pointed out as problems that people is so passive in the participation of jury trial. In the jury inquiry process, the inefficient forms of questions and too comprehensive questions prevent fair composition of jury. Therefore, the alternative should be setting up the social environment in which a person does not feel any burden to join a court process as a juror. Thus, to make up a fair jury, you should develop a efficient way of inquiry. To prevent the infliction of a juror's privacy, a jury selection inquiry can be reviewed, prevented or changed by a court. Third, a juror have difficulty in understanding legal terminology that is used in a courtroom, and also illegal witness statements and tangible evidence. Also, it becomes problematic whether a prosecutor can make a closing comment even after a defense attorney make it. Therefore, the terminology in a courtroom and the way of process should be moderated for the benefit of jurors for better verdict. Moreover, illegal witness statement should be partly used but a witness should be directly examined. In addition, to prevent mislead decision of jury, it seems desirable that a prosecutor can make a rebuttal argument based on some standards even after a defense lawyer's closing argument. Fourth, in a deliberation process, the practicality of jury trial has been questioned because of the issues of disagreements between jury's and judge's decision, the mere recommendatory effect of jury verdict and the conflict between our appellate system and typical jury system. Therefore, the alternative should be to provide the binding force with jury verdict for a unanimous jury decision of not-guilty. Ultimately, every single jury verdict should not be overturned by trial judge's decision. Moreover, we need to more support pre-trial process to make a decision of a trial court more powerful and not overturned by a appellate court. In addition, a appellate court should respect for a jury decision and make stricter review on jury decision than judge's decision.