개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Public participation trial system has been introduced and performed since in January 1 2008 to realize popular sovereignty principle and participatory democracy and also to establish a system improving trust by considering democratic legitimacy and openness of jurisdiction.
Public participation trial system used to be estimated that the system is right to be abolished because of unexpected structural result of the system in the initial stages.
But the system has been settled successfully in a short time by showing that public who don’t have expertise can judge a criminal trial through the analysis and enforcement of public participation trial system for the past 4 years.
Public participation trial system has been implemented for four years and five months, now we need to determine that the final model. So we are being asked to make diligent effort to redesign the system that suit our purpose of introducing the new system through positive method for the problem of public participation trial system in implement.
As part of that effort is presenting the improvement plan by examining the way people conduct of the trial, issues related appellate structure, problem related the jury’s advisory verdict, all directly related to the existence of a public participation trial.
I hope these efforts create fruits that judical system of the people, by the people, for the people.
Meanwhile, supreme court of korea gather opinions from the prosecution, the field of law and academic world to have final decision to choose the form of public participation trial system after arranged the regulation have contents of installing public participation committee and implemented legislation notice on march 23. I think this is really desirable thing.
But most important things are public participation can be said of the trial subjects and attention. I look forward the our public participation trial system suitable for my own country.
Public participation trial system used to be estimated that the system is right to be abolished because of unexpected structural result of the system in the initial stages.
But the system has been settled successfully in a short time by showing that public who don’t have expertise can judge a criminal trial through the analysis and enforcement of public participation trial system for the past 4 years.
Public participation trial system has been implemented for four years and five months, now we need to determine that the final model. So we are being asked to make diligent effort to redesign the system that suit our purpose of introducing the new system through positive method for the problem of public participation trial system in implement.
As part of that effort is presenting the improvement plan by examining the way people conduct of the trial, issues related appellate structure, problem related the jury’s advisory verdict, all directly related to the existence of a public participation trial.
I hope these efforts create fruits that judical system of the people, by the people, for the people.
Meanwhile, supreme court of korea gather opinions from the prosecution, the field of law and academic world to have final decision to choose the form of public participation trial system after arranged the regulation have contents of installing public participation committee and implemented legislation notice on march 23. I think this is really desirable thing.
But most important things are public participation can be said of the trial subjects and attention. I look forward the our public participation trial system suitable for my own country.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 제1단계 국민참여재판제도의 시행경과 분석 및 평가
Ⅲ. 국민참여재판 최종형태(안)의 경과 과정 및 내용 검토
Ⅳ. 결론
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (7)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 2010. 3. 25. 선고 2009도14065 판결
[1] 제1심 증인의 진술에 대한 제1심과 항소심의 신빙성 평가 방법의 차이에, 우리 형사소송법이 채택하고 있는 실질적 직접심리주의의 취지 및 정신을 함께 고려해 보면, 제1심판결 내용과 제1심에서 적법하게 증거조사를 거친 증거들에 비추어 제1심 증인이 한 진술의 신빙성 유무에 대한 제1심의 판단이 명백히 잘못되었다고 볼 특별한 사정이 있거
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-300-003338545