공판단계에서 피고인 구속기간 제한의 문제점과 개선방안 = Problems and Improvement Measures of Restriction of the Defendant's Arrest Period at the Trial Stage

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

If the Defendant in the case filed for prosecution is in custody, the court can basically detain the Defendant for two months and renew the detention period only two to three times depending on the trial level. However, despite the fact that the average processing period from the filing date of criminal trials to the final date has increased compared to the past, and that it takes a considerable amount of time to investigate and examine all requested evidence due to complex criminal changes, the current arrest system has been in its current shape since the Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2007.
If the detention period in the court is maintained as it is now, it is a big burden for the court to release the Defendant and go to trial without detention after the expiration of the detention period. Then, the Defendant has to have difficulty collecting evidence in his/her favor with restriction, and in the absence of a bail system like the United States, the Defendant may be sentenced just before the expiration of the detention period. In the same context, even if the defendant wishes to be more arrested and the case heard closely, the limitation of the arrest period cannot be avoided under the law, so the defendant cannot rule out the possibility of being sentenced through a so-called hasty trial, so the right to a fair trial may be limited.
In addition, courts have often conducted trials with the nature of trial-centeredness due to the adjustment of the prosecution and police investigation rights. If the defendant is released and the defendant is tried without detention, it may cause problems in securing the defendant's whereabouts.
Looking at legislative cases in Germany, Japan, and the United States, there is no restriction on the period of detention in the court during the trial, so it is necessary to devise new measures such as not limiting the period of detention in the court during the trial. I think active use of the bail system, which is used formally in the event of the expiration of the detention period, can also be a way. Originally, according to Article 192 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the investigation of the suspect is also conducted without detention, so according to the principle of presumption of innocence, it is in principle desirable that the court proceedings are also conducted without detention.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 한인섭, "형사소송법 제정과정과 김병로" 법학연구소 28 (28): 103-153, 2017
• 2 신양균, "형사소송법 제·개정 자료집(상)" 한국형사정책연구원 2009
• 3 형사소송법 개정특별위원회, "형사소송법 개정연구" 한국형사정책연구원 2010
• 4 강동욱, "형사소송법 강의" 2018
• 5 이재상, "형사소송법" ㈜북큐브네트웍스 2022
• 6 이용경, "현직 판사 대다수 ‘현행 구속기간 제한 제도 완화해야"
• 7 이창현, "피고인의 구속기간" 고시계사 68 (68): 2023
• 8 법원행정처, "외국사법제도연구(14) -각국의 구속 및 보석 기준과 실무 운영 현황-" 사법정책연구원 2013
• 9 법원행정처, "사법연감" 2022
• 10 김윤선, "법원의 구속기간에 관한 연구" 사법정책연구원 2023
• 11 오기두, "미국의 인신구속제도" 대한변호사협회 (351) : 75-99, 2005
• 12 김종민, "구속제도 이대로는 안 된다"
• 13 신민정, "“‘피해자 해칠 우려’도 구속 사유로 명문화” 힘 받는다"
• 14 정혜민, "“‘구속기한 6개월’’의 딜레마…도주할 우려와 피고인 인권 사이"
• 15 박수연, "1심 민사 장기미제사건 10년새 8배 급증해 법원도 ‘충격’"