해사법원의 설립과 형사관할권

Abstract

In Korea, which does not have a maritime court, the ordinary court resolves the maritime case, but the trial of the important maritime case is proceeded in the court of the UK, so that huge capital is leaked and the competitiveness of the related industry is weak nationally. In this situation, legal and academic circles as well as related industries are actively involved in forming a consensus on the necessity of establishing maritime courts, but there is a conflict of opinion about the jurisdiction of maritime court and the places of establishment. The issue of including criminal jurisdiction in maritime courts is also controversial because criminal jurisdiction is related not only to the convenience of criminal trial but also to the defendant’s right to defend. In spite of these arguments, the merits of the criminal jurisdiction of the maritime court are that the current system, which is in trial at the general courts in the case of maritime criminal cases, is not receiving sufficient public trust due to lack of expertise. And the argument about the defendant’s right to defend can be resolved for defendant to choose the first trial court between the general court and the maritime court. Furthermore, considering that the maritime court already has jurisdiction over criminal cases in China, there seems to be enough room in Korea to recognize the criminal jurisdiction of maritime courts. In this way, maritime criminal cases can be solved through maritime courts, which will enhance the competitiveness of related industries as well as the expertise of the judges.