국민참여재판제도의 몇 가지 개선점 = Several Improvements on the System of Citizen Participation Criminal Trial

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The criminal jury trial system has been enforced since January 1st, 2008 in order to “establish reliable judicial system by enhancing judicial democratic legitimacy and clarity”. Its ultimate objective is to increase the reliability of judical law through judicial democratization.
In the term ‘judicial democratization’, it implies the possibility of observation and control over the trial by citizen’s direct participation and judgement which has long been the unique domain of the judges, rather than the democratization by citizen participation in the judicial system. Yet, the citizen engagement in the trial itself does not necessarily mean the technical observation and control. That is, the trial has to be comprehended by the citizens and the trial system has to be developed based upon them. Thereby, the change in the investigation and trial have to be followed in order for the realization of judicial democratization by the criminal jury trial system.
In the U.S., England, Germany, France and Japan, which have adopted the jury trial, take different forms of systems. Yet, what they have in common as a ground of the system is criminal procedure principle and trial-centrism. Trial centrism is based on nation-centrism. Thereby, trial-centrism allows for the oral argument of the whole trial for the purpose of observation and control by the citizens and reach the ruling by concentrated court hearing by counting trial dates which is facilitated by the submitted evidence. Hence, trial-centrism is a fundamental principle of the citizen-oriented trial system.
In pursuit of judicial democratization through trial-centric trials, change in the investigation is highly required. In other words, the investigation changes of the prosecution is called for as fact-finding person is shifted from the professional judge to the citizen. The prosecution has to convince the jurors without reasonable doubt for the burden of proof, and all the proofs has to be showed in the oral statement in the court which requires the change in the existing investigation practice. Thus, the prosecution has to protect evidential value of the evidence obtained in order to convince the jurors without reasonable doubt and the voluntariness of one’s confession and oral statement at the court has to be assured as most of proofs take the form of testimony. The change in the investigation practice reflects the citizen’s control over the investigation rights and legitimacy of national punishment authority, and judicial democritization by the assurance of human rights.
Judicial democritization and investigation on the changes of
fact-finding person, and changes in the investigation and realization of trial-centrism are the parameters of the successful establishment of the criminal jury trial system. Thus, this study regards the three notions as preconditions of the criminal jury trial system and analyzes and reviews how the preconditions are applied in the criminal jury trial system in Korea in order to suggest appropriate picture of the jury trial system which will be fully implemented in 2013.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 개괄적인 검토 및 방향
• Ⅱ. 문제제기
• Ⅲ. 쟁점별 현행법의 태도 및 개선방안
• Ⅳ. 결론
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 탁희성, "형사정책과 사법제도에 관한 연구(Ⅴ) -국민참여재판제도의 평가와 정책화 방안" 한국형사정책연구원 411-, 2011
• 2 탁희성, "형사정책과 사법제도에 관한 연구(Ⅴ) -국민참여재판제도의 평가와 정책화 방안" 한국형사정책연구원 476-, 2011
• 3 "형사소송법 제266조의9 제1항"
• 4 노명선, "형사소송법" 성균관대학교 출판부 76-, 2011
• 5 노명선, "일본의 재판원제도에 관한 논쟁과 시사점"
• 6 김희균, "배심제의 성공을 위한 제언의 증거능력" 한국형사정책학회 19 (19): 91-112, 2007
• 7 안경환, "배심제와 시민의 사법참여, 50면에서 “구성의 다양성과 평의의 질을 보장하는 취지에서 9인제를 제안하고 있다"
• 8 오기두, "배심원의 판단능력" 한국법학원 (96) : 124-138, 2007
• 9 한상훈, "국민참여재판제도의 정착방안" 한국법학원 (106) : 483-534, 2008
• 10 한상훈, "국민참여재판제도의 정착방안" 한국법학원 (106) : 483-534, 2008
• 11 김태명, "국민참여재판제도의 개선과제" 대한변호사협회 (379) : 27-43, 2008
• 12 김태명, "국민참여재판제도의 개선과제" 대한변호사협회 (379) : 27-43, 2008
• 13 이동희, "국민참여재판의 시행평가와 개선방안" 부설법학연구소 30 : 219-250, 2010
• 14 정진연, "국민참여재판에서 한국형 배심제의 도입" 15 : 4-5, 2006
• 15 황병돈, "국민참여재판 시행 과정상 제기된 문제점 및 개선 방안" 한양법학회 (30) : 33-61, 2010
• 16 하태훈, "국민참여재판 3년만에 고사위기"
• 17 사법개혁추진위원회 기획추진단 실무추진 2팀, "국민의 형사재판참여에 관한 법률안 설명자료"
• 18 국회 법제사법위원회, "국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률안 심사보고서" 5-, 2008
• 19 "국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률안 검토보고서" 법제사법위원회 2006
• 20 법원행정처, "국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률 해설"
• 21 이천현, "국민의 사법참여와 형사재판의 개선방안" 한국공안행정학회 16 (16): 311-340, 2007
• 22 宮島里史, "裁判員制度と對象事件" (32) : 43-, 2001
• 23 松尾浩也, "刑事訴訟における國民參加" 3 (3): 11-, 2001
• 24 Randolph N. Jonakait, "The American Jury System" Yale University Press 90-91, 2003
• 25 법원행정처, "2008-2010년 국민참여재판 성과분석 자료"