지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2006.12
- 수록면
- 9 - 212 (205page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform(hereafter termed "Committee") has been preparing for implementation of the judicial system of citizens' participation in 2007, aiming to improve the problems of the current justice system. In order to enhance the effectiveness of this new system, it is required that the issues and evidences of a trial should be arranged in advance allowing citizens participating in criminal trial to understand the contents correctly and more easily. Taking this point into account, the Committee is trying to introduce a system of the pretrial preparatory procedures.
In this research, I analyzed the key contents of the pretrial preparatory procedures under discussion by the Committee, pointing out several problems associated with them, and advising a legislative direction to solve this problems.
The pretrial preparatory procedures are defined as the procedures through which the issues and evidences of a trial are organized before the first trial date, by collecting the opinions of the prosecutor, the defendant and the attorney. Such procedures have an advantage of leading to a more accurate and efficient hearing, by helping the jury acquire basic information related to the case.
While there are systems similar to the preparatory procedures in other country including the U.S., UK and Germany, they are different from the procedures that we are trying to introduce. Considering that Japan has implemented a procedure most similar to the procedures under our consideration, I examined Japan's system for points of insights.
Furthermore, I looked into Korea's proposed laws having provisions on the pretrial preparatory procedures. As a result, I have found the following problems and made recommendations for possible solutions.
First, there are theoretic problems including making judge's prediction, having influence on litigation system, making the right of defense violated by the lost right effect clause, and making the right to a public trial disturbed. In order to solve these problems, the proposed laws are required to be reconsidered in view of discovery of truth through trial.
Second, there are some provisions that conflict or overlap with current system of criminal procedure law, in relation to the object or content of the pretrial preparatory procedures. In order to resolve these conflicts, it needs to draw a distinction between trial procedures and pretrial preparatory procedures by setting up a clear criterion.
Third, there are practical problems including the increase of work loads related to trial and the lack of human and financial resources. In order to overcome these difficulties, it is necessary not only to expand the number of public prosecutors and improve facilities, but for all parties involved, judge, prosecutor and attorney to make greater efforts in making this new system successful.
In this research, I analyzed the key contents of the pretrial preparatory procedures under discussion by the Committee, pointing out several problems associated with them, and advising a legislative direction to solve this problems.
The pretrial preparatory procedures are defined as the procedures through which the issues and evidences of a trial are organized before the first trial date, by collecting the opinions of the prosecutor, the defendant and the attorney. Such procedures have an advantage of leading to a more accurate and efficient hearing, by helping the jury acquire basic information related to the case.
While there are systems similar to the preparatory procedures in other country including the U.S., UK and Germany, they are different from the procedures that we are trying to introduce. Considering that Japan has implemented a procedure most similar to the procedures under our consideration, I examined Japan's system for points of insights.
Furthermore, I looked into Korea's proposed laws having provisions on the pretrial preparatory procedures. As a result, I have found the following problems and made recommendations for possible solutions.
First, there are theoretic problems including making judge's prediction, having influence on litigation system, making the right of defense violated by the lost right effect clause, and making the right to a public trial disturbed. In order to solve these problems, the proposed laws are required to be reconsidered in view of discovery of truth through trial.
Second, there are some provisions that conflict or overlap with current system of criminal procedure law, in relation to the object or content of the pretrial preparatory procedures. In order to resolve these conflicts, it needs to draw a distinction between trial procedures and pretrial preparatory procedures by setting up a clear criterion.
Third, there are practical problems including the increase of work loads related to trial and the lack of human and financial resources. In order to overcome these difficulties, it is necessary not only to expand the number of public prosecutors and improve facilities, but for all parties involved, judge, prosecutor and attorney to make greater efforts in making this new system successful.
목차
국문요약
제1장 서론
제2장 국민참여재판제도와 공판전준비절차에 관한 일반적 고찰
제3장 외국의 공판전준비절차
제4장 참여법(안)상 공판전준비절차의 내용
제5장 문제점과 입법방안
제6장 결론
참고문헌
[부록]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
공판준비기일의 합리적 운용방안에 대한 연구
형사법연구
2008 .01
-
개정 형사소송법상 공판준비절차
비교형사법연구
2010 .01
-
현행 형사소송법과 개정 법률안에서의 공판준비절차의 검토
형사법연구
2006 .01
-
일본의 재판원재판 실시현황과 개선논의에 대한 검토와 시사점
비교형사법연구
2014 .01
-
중국 개정 형사소송법에서의 간이절차 연구
원광법학
2013 .01
-
형사절차와 인권 : 『사법제도개혁추진위원회』의 형사소송법 개정안을 중심으로
한양법학
2006 .08
-
공판중심주의의 의의와 실현방안
경찰학논총
2008 .01
-
미국의 재판전서비스제도
형사정책연구
2005 .03
-
일제강점기 조서재판의 실태
형사법연구
2006 .01
-
형사소송법 개정 이후 공판검사제도 운영실태와 개선방안에 관한 연구
형사정책연구
2009 .03
-
헌법재판소의 결정이 형사사건의 공판절차에 미친 영향 : 지난 20년간의 헌법재판소 결정례를 중심으로
한양법학
2009 .08
-
개정 형사소송법상 증거개시 제도
법학논총
2007 .08
-
일본 형사재판에서의 국민 참여에 관한 쟁점과 그 시사점
원광법학
2010 .01
-
형사재판에 있어 국민의 사법참여제도
비교형사법연구
2006 .01
-
국민참여재판제도의 문제점과 개선방안
원광법학
2014 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-364-003831218