국민 참여 형사재판제도의 정착을 위한 제언 = A Suggestions for a Activation of the Civil Participation in Criminal Trial

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Even to look at the case of United States which can be called the country of Jury trial system, it has undergone a long historical course until the civil participation in the judicial process came to take root in the society. Thus, even if its success is not satisfactory, it`s not only not desirable to hastily jump to conclusions about the existence or removal of the system only by five years of experience and results over a short time of 5 years, but also it turns the intent and purpose to overcome the distrust and establish the true meaning of the judicial sovereignty of the people into inaction. Japan`s failed trial by jury gives us the lesson. We can find the real cause of their failure not in the formal aspect on the surface that the effect of verdict was advisory, but rather in the substantial aspect that in fact the system itself was used for political purposes and, moreover, the failure was largely due to the phenomenon of three legal parties` avoiding, whether actively or passively, and in the fact that the system had been neglected out side of the interests of the people who are the real participating subject in it. In order not to trace on such Japan`s step, sufficient social discussions and consensus on the form of civil participating trial should be made until the point of finishing the first step of plan. In addition, the attitude to understand the legal nature of institutions and norms as the temporary or transitional one with limited time also plays the role of making the survival of the system too opaque. But it should be kept in mind that there doesn`t exist the stated provision of the legal basis of the system as the temporary law, and the way of reasoning on that basis is only the opinion suggested by ``juridical reformation commission``, and that the existence of the system depends the public consciousness and awareness of public opinion, the three legal parties` consensus, and the responsibility of criminal legislator entrusted to arrange them normatively.