국제형사재판소의 피해자 참여권과 피고인 권리의 갈등과 균형에 대한 연구

권순민 한국비교형사법학회 2018 비교형사법연구 Vol.19 No.4

Victim‘s participation offers individual criminal victims an meaningful opportunity to play an important role in the criminal procedures. The Rome Statute of ICC grants victim participation in the criminal process by discretion of Chamber. Victims may play an important role in all stages of the proceedings. Victim's participation in ICC is ruled by Article 68(3). According to this Article, the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the Court. Article 68(3) also only restricts victim's participation as it is prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. This could be the limitation of victim's participation in the procedure. However these provisions in the Rome Statute are somewhat vague, and Chamber admits victim's participation broadly. Giving participatory rights to victims widely will necessarily conflict with the accused’s right to a fair and expeditious trial. The addition of multiple victims or even a single victim in a criminal trial may create an imbalance between them. The Rome Statute and Rules may have internal contradictions of the rights between victims and defendants. Excessive participation of victim at the ICC may conflict with the rights of the accused. The ICC should consider reconciling the conflict between rights of victims and defendants, as our criminal justice system is. 국제형사재판소의 로마조약은 2002년 7월부터 대량학살, 전쟁범죄 그리고인간성에 반하는 범죄들에 대해 시행되어졌다. 국제형사재판소는 국제적으로관심을 받는 중대한 범죄를 저지른 사람들에 대해 관할권을 갖는 영구적인기관일 뿐만 아니라, 재판 전 절차 및 재판절차 과정 동안 형사절차상 피해자 참여를 위해 말 그대로 완벽하게 새로운 시스템으로 국제 형사 사법 현장에 변화를 가져왔다. 피해자 참여를 형사절차에서 배제하였던 이전의 국제형사재판소들과 달리 피해자 참여를 확대하고 회복적 사법을 우선시 하였기때문이다. 이러한 획기적인 피해자 참여 규정은 2002년부터 시행되고 있는로마조약에 규정되어 있다. 다만 피해자 참여에 대한 권리와 조건 그리고 그한계를 규정하고 있는 로마조약은 모호한 부분이 많아서 결국은 재판부의구체적인 사안에서의 결정이 중요한 역할을 할 수밖에 없다. 그런데 국제형사재판소 재판부는 구체적 사건에서 피해자의 참여적 권리를 확대하는 결정들을 해왔고 그 결과 피해자들은 소송주체와 유사한 절차 참여권을 인정받고 있다. 이에 대한 비판적 혹은 반성적 견해가 제기되고 있는 것도 사실이다. 바로 과도한 피해자 참여 규정으로 인해 피고인의 방어권이나 공정한 재판 받을 권리가 침해될 수 있다는 것이고, 그 외에도 절차의 지연이나 검사의 공소유지에 방해가 된다는 부정적인 견해도 존재한다. 여기에서 특히 우리가 주목해야 할 부분은 피해자의 형사재판의 활발한 참여가 피고인의 방어권을 중대하게 제한하고 결과적으로 공정한 재판 받을 권리를 침해할 수있다는 점이다. 이러한 논의들은 피해자 참가를 내용으로 하는 형사소송법률개정을 준비해 온 우리 형사사법체계에서도 반드시 고려되어야 할 사항이다.

청소년 범죄피해의 피해사실 보고에 대한 연구: 사이버 폭력 피해를 중심으로

강지현 한국경찰학회 2022 한국경찰학회보 Vol.24 No.1

In this study, we analyzed the factors that influence the decision to report online victimization to others by paying attention to the decisions of cyber aggression victims. Drawing upon cost-benefit analysis, normative prescription on victims’ decision to call the police and the multilevel contextualized help- seeking model, incident-relevant factors, features of victims, and environmental factors are examined. In addition, we also considered whether or not the victim's own experience of perpetration on cyber aggression influences their decisions. For the current study, secondary data from ‘A Study on the Types and Countermeasures of Youth Cyber Violence(Lee et al., 2016)’ was used. Similarities and differences were found in the determinants of victims’ reporting to police and the factors that influence the reporting online victimization among youths. It was found that gender, perceived severity of the damage, and victim- offender relationships were significant. This study empirically test whether our understanding on victims’ decision to report their victimization to the police are applicable to the determinants of reporting of online victimization among youths. Due to the limitations of secondary data, it is difficult to generalize the results of the current study. 이 연구에서는 청소년 사이버폭력 피해자가 주위에 피해사실을 알리는데 영향을 미치는 요인을 분석하였다. 분석을 위해 선행연구에서 밝힌 범죄피해자의 경찰신고 결정요인에 대한 이론적 모형(비용편익 분석과 규범적 관념)과 실증적 선행연구에서 나타난 요인들이 어떻게 청소년 사이버폭력 피해자의 피해사실 보고여부에 영향을 설명하는지 확인하였다. 또한, 최근 피해자 대응에 대한 보다 종합적인 이론적 모형으로 제시된 다수준의 상황별 피해자 대응모형(multilevel, contextualized help-seeking model)을 분석모형에 일부 반영하고 피해자의 가해경험이 영향을 미치는지도 고려하였다. 연구를 위해 ‘사이버폭력의 유형분석 및 대응방안 연구(이승현 외, 2016)’의 자료를 활용하였다. 분석 결과, 성별과 피해의 심각성, 아는 가해자 여부가 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 청소년 사이버폭력의 피해사실을 주위사람들에게 알리는데도 피해의 심각성이 중요한 영향을 미치는 요인임을 확인하였다. 이 연구는 청소년 피해자의 대응에 주목하였고, 기존의 경찰신고에 대한 논의를 사이버폭력 피해로 확장하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다. 또한, 최근 새롭게 제시된 다수준의 상황별 피해자 대응모형(multilevel, contextualized help-seeking model)을 고려하여 피해자의 보다 광범위한 대응행위에 주목했다는 점에서도 선행연구들과 구별된다. 그러나, 이차자료의 한계로 인하여 다수준의 영향 요인들을 고려하지 못하였고, 사이버 폭력의 다양한 세부유형을 비교하지 못하였다는 점에서는 한계가 있다.

경찰청 범죄피해 평가제도에 대한 평가와 향후전망 - 전국 확대시행의 필요성과 유용성 검토를 중심으로 -

이정원 한국피해자학회 2018 被害者學硏究 Vol.26 No.3

The National Police Agency has implemented the Victim Assessment Report('VAR') within a limited scope since 2016. VAR was introduced institutionally in response to the demand that the intentions of victims should be reflected in criminal procedures. Based on a victim's statement about his or her damage, an objective third party expert writes an assessment report. VAR is used as evidence to prove injury of the component indicators, reference for punishment, and consideration for arrest or detention. VAR's major features include many factor as below; management as an original integrated model to maximize the advantages of similar cases in advanced nations, evaluation by psychology experts outside the police from the perspective of protecting victims, and utilization of objective measuring instruments to digitize assessment results. Of its many functions, the system has functions that improve the participation of victims in the criminal procedures by assisting and facilitating them with their statements, realize the systemization and specification of crime victim, write a report on victim statements in document records, provide basic data for the punishment decision by a judge, help victims recover and heal psychologically, and make the recovery from damage fast and simple in combination with the compensation order system. Its dysfunctions include the possibilities of contamination or suggestibility in victim statements, risk of leakage of a victim's personal information, decrease of the victim's trust in the judicial system due to his or her excessive expectations, the court's increased burdens with trial affairs or reduced discretion for punishment, and secondary victimization. When VAR is reviewed from the perspectives of balance between conflicting interests, feasibility, and the state's duty of protecting human rights, the need and usefulness of its expansion is fully recognized. 경찰청에서는 2016년부터 제한적 범위에서 범죄피해 평가제도(이하 ‘평가제도’라 함)를 운영하여 왔다. 형사절차에서 피해자의 의사를 반영하기 위한 요구에 의해 제도적으로 도입되었다. 피해자의 피해진술에 기초하여 객관적‧제3자적 지위의 전문가에 의해 평가결과서가 작성된다. 평가보고서에는 피해의 정도 및 결과에 관한 피해영향 진술 부분, 피고인의 처벌에 관한 양형의견 진술 부분, 범죄피해에 관한 전문가의 평가의견 부분이 기재된다. 최근 형사판결문에는 평가제도의 시행산출물인 평가보고서가 언급되고 있다. 구성요건표지 중 상해를 입증하기 위한 증거자료, 양형을 위한 참고자료, 체포구속을 위한 고려사항으로 활용되고 있다. 외국의 유사제도와 비교분석해 보면, 평가제도는 피해영향진술 유형(VIS)을 기초로 한 피해영향평가보고 유형(VIR)의 결합이지만, 양형의견진술 유형(VSO)를 선택적으로 병행 운영하는 것으로 표현할 수 있다. 또한 재판 전 경찰수사단계에서 서면으로만 작성된다. 평가제도의 주요특징은 다음과 같다. 선진국 사례의 장점을 극대화한 독창적인 통합 모델로 운영된다. 피해자보호 관점에서 경찰외부 심리전문가에 의해 평가된다. 평가결과 수치화를 위해 객관적 측정도구가 활용된다. 또 사건발생 초기부터 피해정도를 확인하고 추적관찰이 가능하다. 피해자의 자발적 진술에 기초하여 전문가 감정의견이 기재된다. 평가제도의 순기능으로는. 피해진술 조력 및 촉진으로 형사절차 참여도 향상, 범죄피해의 체계화 및 구체화 실현, 피해 진술의 서면기록으로 보고적 기능 수행, 법관의 양형을 위한 기초자료로 활용, 피해자의 심리 회복 및 치유의 효과, 배상명령제도와 결부될 경우 피해회복의 신속‧간이화를 들 수 있다. 역기능으로는 피해진술의 오염 또는 피암시 가능성, 피해자의 개인정보 유출 우려, 피해자의 과도한 기대 야기로 사법신뢰도 저하, 법원의 재판실무상 부담 증가 또는 양형 재량 감소를 들 수 있다. 2차 피해와 관련한 상반된 기능도 존재한다. 평가제도의 여러 기능간 이익형량 관점에서, 실현가능성 관점에서, 국가의 기본권보호의무 관점에서 검토해 보면, 확대시행의 필요성과 유용성은 충분히 인정된다. 다만, 평가제도에 대한 지속적인 관찰과 피드백을 통해 미비점과 보완사항을 도출하고 개선를 반복적으로 거쳐야 한다. 평가제도의 시행과 관련된 다양한 자료를 데이터화 하고 전산화 작업이 필요하다. 이를 기초로 제도시행의 평가를 위한 자료로 활용하고, 다양한 실증적 연구도 필요하다. 또 해외의 범죄피해 진술제도 사례에 대해서도 지속적으로 관심을 가져야 한다. 무엇보다 제도의 안정적인 시행과 꾸준한 관심유도를 위해서는 향후 피해자보호기금을 통한 예산지원이 필요하다.

성범죄재판에서 ‘피해자다움’이란 있는가?: 좁은 의미의 피해자다움의 논리에 대한 비판적 논의

김선희 이화여자대학교 한국여성연구원 2019 여성학논집 Vol.36 No.1

본 논문의 목표는 성범죄재판에서 피해자에게 피해자다울 것을 요구하는 <피해자다움>의 논리를 비판하고, 전형적인 의미의 ‘피해자다움’이란 없다는 것을 논의하는 것이다. 이 목적을 위해, 이 논문에서는 이상적인 피해자상을 전제하지 않는 ‘좁은 의미의 피해자다움’에 초점을 두어 논의하고자 한다. ‘좁은 의미의’ 피해자다움은 상대적으로 피해자다움의 범위를 좁게 설정함으로써 피해자다움을 요구하는 조건이나 범위를 최소화하는 것으로 보인다. 그럼에도 불구하고 좁은 의미의 피해자다움 개념도 심각한 문제가 있다는 것을 논의함으로써, 궁극적으로 성범죄 법정에서 <피해자다움>의 개념은 폐기되어야 한다는 것을 논의하고자 한다. 나아가 피해자의 전형적인 행위란 존재하지 않기에, 피해자의 행위를 이해하기 위한 적절한 모델은 인과적 모델이 아니라 피해자의 입장에서 피해자의 이유를 공유하는 시뮬레이션 모델이라는 것을 논의할 것이다. 또한 대법원판결에서 언급한 성인지 감수성을 해석할 수 있는 하나의 대안으로서 시뮬레이션 행위이해모델을 검토할 것이다. The purpose of this paper is to criticize the logic of "victim-likeness" in the sexual crime trial and to discuss that there is no typical type of victims. I will argue that the myth of victim-likeness weakens the credibility of the victim's statement and, as a result, promotes distorted judgment. For this purpose, this article focuses on 'the narrow sense of victim-likeness'. The narrow concept of victim-likeness seems to minimize the conditions or range of victim-likeness by setting a relatively narrow range of victim-like actions. Nevertheless, by discussing that there is a serious problem of the narrow concept of victim-likeness, I will argue that the narrow concept itself is also unreasonable. Thus, I will show that the concept of victim-likeness introduced in the sexual crime trial is not justified. I discuss that the concept of victim-likeness is unnecessary and even harmful in order to judge the credibility of a victim's statement, and ultimately the concept of victim-likeness should be discarded in a sexual crime tribunal. Furthermore, I will argue that the appropriate model for understanding the victim's behavior is not a causal model but a simulation model for the victim's position. I will also examine the model of simulation as an alternative to interpret gender sensitivity.

참여의 관점에서 바라본 피해자의 진술권

정도희(Do-Hee Jeong) 한국형사정책학회 2009 刑事政策 Vol.21 No.2

The Constitution enacted right so statement on trial of the victims and entrusted the concrete realization to Code of Crime Procedure Code of Crime Procedure revised in 2007 extended applicant of victim statement, allowed the victim to state in a course of trial, even the victim stated in a stage of investigation and edited out exceptive reason in application Even with this revision, it is quite irrational that right to statement of the victims is still based on the frame of examination of witness Once a victim states through examination of witness, the victim is no more the subject of statement, but the object of statement On top of that, even the denial of testimony regarding personal information is not admitted, so that the dignity of a victim can be violated It is not reasonable, in this case, that a victim states to bear of the danger to commit perjury The judicial system must escape from the current frame of examination of witness and edit out the exceptive reason in realizing victim statement It is time to introduce Victim Impact Statement as complementary measures about the current victim statement system. On this proposal, it is apprehended that the statement of a victim in a stage of sentencing can have an effect on the punishment of the defendant This concern can be cleared by giving opportunity to state about damage by a crime and its influence to only the victim after becoming final of defendant's conviction Right to victim statement is to be extended Since we acknowledge right of victim statement as a constitutional right, a powerful right of statement is granted to the victim. Introduction of Victim Impact Statement, as complementary measures, is likely to guarantee right to victim statement substantially

성폭력범죄 피해실태와 개정법상 피해자보호 및 지원방안

이희경(Lee, Heekyung) 한국피해자학회 2013 被害者學硏究 Vol.21 No.2

A series of special criminal law amendments were made this past December 18, 2012 in relation to sexually violent crimes, including the Criminal Act, Special Act on the Punishment, Etc. of Sexually Violent Crimes, and Act on the Protection of Children and Young Adults. The most distinguishing features of the December 2012 amendments include the full abolishment of provisions that make the prosecution of these crimes contingent on the victim’s filing a criminal complaint, and the change of language in the object of sexual crimes from “woman” to “person,” thus recognizing male victims of sexual crimes. In addition, the Special Act on the Punishment, Etc. of Sexually Violent Crimes provided legal basis for the protection and support for the victims of sex crimes, including victim’s counsel to prevent harm to the victim arising from the criminal process and to provide legal aid, witness support officers to protect and support the victims and others who stand witness, and witness assistants to provide assistance to those witnesses who have difficulty communicating. Victims of sexually violent crimes face such a difficult battle to reclaim their normal lives that they are termed “survivors.” The state has too much responsibility in failing to prevent these crimes in the first place to leave victims on their own to survive and overcome. Therefore, in addition to extending all efforts to efficiently implement the new systems in the amendments of December 2012 including victim’s counsel, witness support officers, and witness assistants, both the state and society must strive to discover and mend any deficiency in the preexisting solutions for sexual violence so that victims of sexual violence can reclaim their lives. Most of all, the best means to protect the victims of sexual violence is to prevent sexually violent crimes so there are no victims in the first place. To this end, means are necessary to prevent convicted sex criminals from committing future crimes given the high recidivism rate of these crimes, and also to prevent the victimization of potentially vulnerable groups through prevention education and the preparation and promotion of manuals on dealing with sexual violence. Sexual violence prevention education, far from being a formality to comply with mandatory regulations, should be made into effective tools to prevent sexual violence.

당사자주의 소송구조에 있어 범죄피해자의 권리

류병관(Ryu, Byung Kwan) 한국피해자학회 2011 被害者學硏究 Vol.19 No.1

Our country(South Korea)'s victimology has recently showed many outcomes, starting with the introduction of 2004 Crime Victims Act. It established the Criminal Victims-related Regulation in 2007, June, 01 through the revision of Criminal Procedure Law, introduced the Criminal Meditation in 2010, May, 14 through the revision of Criminal Victims Protection Law, and finally, from the late times of 2010, has considered the introduction of Victim Participation System under the leadership of the Ministry of Justice. However, the introduction of Criminal Victims' Participation in the procedure of a public trial can cause a conflict with the defendant's traditional rights protected by the Constitution or the Criminal Procedure Law, in the changing process of the Criminal Procedure Law that strengthens the Adversary System. Moreover, this conflict can be developed into the limiting factor of the extension of Victims' rights, concerning the question whether it can acknowledge victims as the procedure party and offer the proper rights to them. United States who has kept the adversary system throughly, has protected substantially the Victim's Right Regulations which have been suspected of their effectiveness, with the Federal Legislation, through the establishment of 2004 Crime Victims' Right act. This also has protected completely the victim's participation in the criminal procedure. At present, U. S, however, undergoes the confusion in the real enforcement of the law, in the interactions between the court, the prosecutor, and the defendant's rights, and the victim's rights after the enforcement of CVRA. This study investigates the debates aroused in the recent U. S after the 2004 enforcement of CVRA, surrounding the conflict of rights among the procedure subjects, which the criminal victim's participation in the Criminal Procedure in the Adversary System, can bring about.

권리로서의 피해자진술권 확보 방안

오경식(Oh, Kyung Sik) 한국피해자학회 2016 被害者學硏究 Vol.24 No.1

Victim’s position in criminal procedure is only the role as evidence in criminal justice agencies. The crime victim’s right is the constitutional right, the Constitution of the Republic of Korea §27⑤. Article 27, paragraph (5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees a victim of crime the right to give a statement during trial proceedings. Article 294-2, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act specifies this constitutional right: “The court shall, upon receiving a petition from a victim of a crime or his/her legal representative (including his/her spouse, lineal relative, sibling, if the victim is dead), admit such victim as witness for examination.” Despite these provisions, a victim’s right to give such statements during trial proceedings has not been substantially realized in the Korean criminal justice procedure. But the right of crime victim can not be actually realized by criminal procedure law. The crime victim’s right should be always protect during the judicial proceedings. In the Constitution law §27⑤ and criminal procedure law §294-2, victim statement as victim’s right is regulated but insufficient to realize. The Constitution of the Republic of Krea §27⑤ guarantees a victim of crime the right to give a statement during trial proceedings. I would like to propose amendment of criminal procedure on victim statement as victim’s right.

검찰 피해자보호 시스템의 현황과 전망

경인현(Kyung, In-Hyun) 한국피해자학회 2004 被害者學硏究 Vol.12 No.2

Leaving the theoretical aspects for protecting the victims to the tasks of the proper professionals, I want to examine briefly in this presentation the present practices for the purpose by the prosecutory authorities. The prosecutor's office has an established system to protect victims by informing, on written documents, the beginning of trials to the victims, such as reporters of major crimes, etc. And it has already established protective measures for the victims of children by sexual molestation and assault to be with their parents or supporters in the processes of videotaping the hearings and investigations. Ulsan District Public Prosecutor's Office has established more effective victims' protection system by appointing a prosecutor and a staff to each victim for the exclusive hearings and counselling. In Kimchon, "Victims Support Center" was opened for the first time in Korea, on September 5, 2003. And, Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office has used since April 18th, 2003, an investigation room equipped with single-side mirror to protect human rights of the victims, especially the victims of sexual assault. And the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office set up a "Task Force Team for Scientific Investigation" on March 12, 2004 and has tried as its primary task to systemize recording and videotaping the investigation processes. Also, the prosecutory authorities have initiated to hold seminars for four occasions with faculty members of law schools, for example, a "Seminar to Protect Victims and Appropriate Measures for the Victims of Crimes in the Criminal Proceedings" held, on July 8th 2003, by Daejon District Public Prosecutor's Office with faculty members of law schools in Daejon and Choongchung Namdo area, to discuss and find concrete methods to systematize victims' protection, such methods as to prevent victims from multiple attendance, and relief systems for victims.

검찰의 범죄피해자 보호대책

경인현(Kyung, In-Hyun) 한국피해자학회 2005 被害者學硏究 Vol.13 No.1

I want to examine briefly in this presentation the present practices for the purpose by the prosecutory authorities. The prosecutor's office has an established system to protect victims by informing, on written documents, the beginning of trials to the victims, such as reporters of major crimes, etc. And it has already established protective measures for the victims of children by sexual molestation and assault to be with their parents or supporters in the processes of videotaping the hearings and investigations. Ulsan District Public Prosecutor's Office has established more effective victims' protection system by appointing a prosecutor and a staff to each victim for the exclusive hearings and counselling. In Kimchon, "Victims Support Center" was opened for the first time in Korea, on September 5, 2003. And, Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office has used since April 18th, 2003, an investigation room equipped with single-side mirror to protect human rights of the victims, especially the victims of sexual assault. And the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office set up a "Task Force Team for Scientific Investigation" on March 12, 2004 and has tried as its primary task to systemize recording and videotaping the investigation processes. Also, the prosecutory authorities have initiated to hold seminars for four occasions with faculty members of law schools, for example, a "Seminar to Protect Victims and Appropriate Measures for the Victims of Crimes in the Criminal Proceedings" held, on July 8th 2003, by Daejon District Public Prosecutor's Office with faculty members of law schools in Daejon and Choongchung Namdo area, to discuss and find concrete methods to systematize victims' protection, such methods as to prevent victims from multiple attendance, and relief systems for victims.