System of Civil Participation in Criminal Trial which was introduced for democratization of judicature and for securing trust of the people has been implemented since January 1, 2008 and already 3 years passed since that time. Adoption or no adoption of full scale System of Civil Participation in Criminal Trial was to be decided finally after elapse of 5 years from the date of first implementation of the system. System of Civil Participation in Criminal Trial prompted vigorous debates among proponents on the side of approval and opposition from inception of its introduction and also there were much controversy over forms of its implementation. However the current system was created in a form different from typical American type jury system or Saiban-In (Lay judge)system of Japan. Since introduction of System of Civil Participation in Criminal Trial lots of change have been occurring in criminal trials. Since introduction of unfamiliar jury system there was formal change as shown by upholding principle on primacy of trial and concentrated hearing and speedy trial. In terms of substance there was practical change. Thus difference from conventional trial practice could be sensed as manifested by higher rate of verdict of guiltlessness in comparison with ordinary criminal case. Court showed respect to such decision and Supreme Court expressed its respect to trial on the appeal case in connection with unanimous verdict of guiltlessness. While American and British style jury system was introduced with System of Civil Participation in Criminal Trial however considering it was first introduction of such system to our country unique Korean style system was added to it. It seemed such system is reflecting existing perception of the court which is rooted in its view regarding trial solely based on verdict of jury itself unacceptable. But after elapse of 3 years since implementation of the system now more than 90% of jury`s verdict and trial were found as identical. Thus it appeared that worry shown initially was unfounded one. It is high time now to have interim appraisal and re-appraisal of current system and to chart out direction to be headed in future. In terms of subject cases there is need of unitary regulation as collegiate cases instead of current dual regulation. Instead of maintaining current system based on principle of application there is need for revision of specific regulation in connection with Clause for Court`s comprehensive abatement decision. In terms of procedure for System of Civil Participation in Criminal Trial there is need of simple regulation stipulating number of juries to 5 for the case of confession and 9 for all the other cases. It seems there is need for revising the method of verdict based on quorum and on majority of more than 2/3 instead of simple majority. There are lots of controversy on whether or not juries verdict should have binding power and in this connection it seemed there is need to recognize such binding power when all the juries passed verdict of guiltlessness unanimously or by overwhelming majority of 1/8. At this moment when System of Civil Participation in Criminal Trial which started cautiously but apparently succeeded in finding its roots deeply is high time to dispell any doubt about juries verdict but to revise current System of Civil Participation in Criminal Trial along the time more suitable to original jury system whereby court decision is based on juries verdict in principle so that purport of introduction of the system in the beginning could be kept alive.