검찰의 형사사법정책의 현안과 과제 - Luhmann의 체계이론적 분석의 시도 -

이창온 한국형사정책학회 2023 刑事政策 Vol.35 No.3

검찰개혁논의는 지난 수십년 동안 계속되어 왔으며 최근 몇 년 사이에는 소위 검찰개혁 입법이 대대적으로 이루어졌다. 그러한 입법은 소송법과 조직법률의 일부 개정이나 다른 기구의 설치를 통해서 사회공학적으로 형사사법체계를 변화시킬 수 있다는 관점 하에서 진행되었으나, 복잡한 현대사회에서 역사적, 구조적으로 형성되어온 형사사법체계를 일부 실정법의 입법적 변화만으로 수정하는 것은 극히 어렵다. Niklas Luhmann의 체계이론(die Systemtheorie)을 검찰 개혁입법에 적용해보면 그 이유를 파악할 수 있다. 첫째, 우리 형사사법체계는 고소, 고발제도와 공판전예비증거조사절차인 강제수사절차를 전제로 하는 직권주의적 형사사법체계임에도그 하위 형사사법체계인 검찰에 대한 개혁입법들은 그러한 직권적 형사사법체계의 구조와 모순되거나 비체계적인 방향으로 이루어졌기 때문에 상쇄효과나 예기치 못한 부작용의 파급효과를 낳게 되었다. 둘째, 체계의 변화를 의도하는 검찰에 대한 형사사법정책은 검찰 구성원들의 인센티브, 기대구조, 직업적 에토스와 사유양식 등을 파악하여, 실정법의 변화가 검찰 조직 구성원에게 가져올 심리, 사유, 정체성 등의 변화를 고려하여야 하였음에도, 입법 과정에서 전혀 고려되지 않았다. 소위 개혁입법들은 형사소송의 3대 이념을 조화롭게 달성하는데 필요한 고려들을 충분히 하지 못한 채, 종래 표준적 모델이던 준사법관 모델을 폐기하고, 검찰은 조직의 권력을 유지하고 확장하려는 권력기관이라는 권력모델의 관점에서 검찰의 권력을 분산하는 것에만 관심을 집중하였다. 또한 검찰의 권력을 분산하기 위한 도구로서 우리 형사사법체계와 정합되지 않는 영미법계 형사사법체계의 일부 요소들을 도입하였다. 이로 말미암아 그 입법이 표면적으로 의도한 목적들은 기존 형사사법체계와 상쇄되어 효과가 제대로 드러나지 않았을 뿐만 아니라, 우리 형사사법체계에신속성과 효율성의 저해라는 심각한 부작용을 초래하였다. 따라서 검찰에 대한 형사사법정책학은 권력모델에 입각하여 법률 개정만을 추구하는 것이 아니라 우리 사회체계 및 형사사법체계의 구조와 특성을 고려한 정합적이고 체계적인 연구이어야 하며, 기존 제도 내에서 검찰 구성원이 가지는 기대구조, 인센티브와 사유양식을 포함한 포괄적이고, 실증적이며 경험적인 연구에 집중할 필요가 있다. 또한 검찰 스스로도 중, 장기 형사사법정책을 우선순위로서 추진할 필요가있다. 그것은 장기적으로는 우리 실무를 원래의 준사법관 모델에 근접하도록 준사법관 모델의 강화를 지속적, 선제적으로 추진하는 것이며, 단기적으로는 개혁입법이 초래한 역기능을 해소함으로써, 우리 형사사법체계의 효율성과 지속가능성을 보장하는 것이다. A variety of suggestions on prosecution reform have continued to be made for the past several decades, and so-called prosecution reform acts have been passed on a large scale in recent years. Such legislation was carried out on the assumptions that the criminal justice system could be changed through social engineering with partial revision of procedural and organizational laws or the establishment of new organizations, but It is extremely difficult to change the criminal justice system with changing some positive laws alone because the system has been formed historically and structurally in a complex modern society. The reason can be elaborated by applying Niklas Luhmann's system theory(die Systemtheorie) to prosecution reform legislation. First, our criminal justice system is deemed to be an inquistorial system which is premised on the pre-trial preliminary evidence investigation and gathering procedure having the complaint and accusation right of victims and the compulsory investigative authority of prosecutor and judicial police at its heart, and the prosecution is a subsystem of criminal justice system, nevertheless, the reform legislation contradicts the structure of such criminal justice system of ours. Having been carried out in such an unsystematic way, it has resulted in a ripple effect of offsetting effects or unexpected side effects. Second, the criminal should understand the expectation structure, professional ethos, and reasoning style of the prosecution members. It should have taken into account changes in psychology, reasons, and identity of members in the prosecution service that would bring about by the reform legislation, This was not done at all through the legislation process all along. The so-called reform legislation failed to sufficiently weigh in on the way to harmoniously achieve the three objectives of criminal justice process. It discarded the quasi-judicial model of prosecutor, the longtime standard model, and focused only on distributing the power of the prosecution based on the perspective of the power model which views the prosecution service as mainly pursuing its own social and political power. It has been trying to introduce some elements of the Anglo-American criminal justice system as a tool to disperse the power of the prosecutio, However they were not consistent with our criminal justice system. As a result, the ostensibly intended purposes of the legislation were offset by the reaction of existing criminal justice system, and not only did the effects not appear properly, but it also caused serious side effects in our criminal justice system, such as impeding speed and efficiency. Therefore, the study of criminal justice policy for prosecution should not only pursue law revision based on the power model, but should be a coherent and systematic study that takes into account the structure and characteristics of our social system and criminal justice system, and should study the expectations of members within the existing prosecution system, There is a need to focus on comprehensive, empirical research that includes incentives and modes of thinking of members of the system. The prosecution itself needs to pursue midto long-term criminal justice policies as a priority. In the long term, it is to continuously and proactively promote the quasi-judicial model by approaching our practices more closely to the ones in original model, and in the short term, it is to ensure the efficiency and sustainability of our criminal justice system by resolving the dysfunction caused by reform legislation.

형사사법절차의 전자화에 따른 법적 쟁점에 대한 고찰

박혜림 梨花女子大學校 法學硏究所 2021 法學論集 Vol.26 No.1

형사사법정보시스템(KICS)은 법원, 법무부, 검찰청, 경찰청, 해양경찰청을 포함한 형사사법기관이 수사, 기소, 재판, 집행 등 형사사건의 처리 업무에서 작성하거나 취득한 정보를 가지고 구축한 전자적 관리체계를 말한다. 형사사법기관의 문서 작성을 전산화하고 각 기관의 정보를 공동 활용하여 신속하고 투명한 형사사법절차를 실현하기 위해 마련한 것이다. 형사사법공통시스템은 2010년 처음 구축되어 시행된 지 10년이 넘어 현 시스템의 수용적 한계에 부딪히면서 새로운 시스템 구축의 필요성이 제기되기 시작했다. 이에 2018년 법무부, 검찰, 경찰, 해양경찰청은 공동으로 최신 IT 기술 기반의 지능형 형사사법서비스를 제공하기 위해 “차세대 형사사법정보시스템(KICS) 구축을 위한 계획 사업”을 밝힌 바 있다. 또한 법무부는 2021년 1월 29일 형사사법절차의 전자화를 실현하기 위해 형사사법정보시스템 구축과 더불어 형사사법절차에서의 전자문서 이용 등에 관한 법률안을 제출하여 현재 국회에 계류 중이다. 형사사법절차의 전자화를 통해 모든 문서가 전자화되고 전자문서를 시스템상에서 이전하는 형태로 진행되면서 형사사법절차의 편의성과 신속성이 높아질 것이지만 공유하는 전자문서의 급증함에 따라 정보 남용의 위험성, 정보수집자와 정보주체자를 포함한 정보청구권자 사이의 정보의 불평등성 심화 등의 문제가 발생할 수 있다. 이를 위해 공유하는 정보에 대한 개인정보의 차등적 관리와 폐기, 정보공개청구권자에 따른 차별적 정보공개에 대한 제도와 근거 법률을 마련하는 것이 필요하다고 본다. The Criminal Justice Information System (KICS) is an electronic management system built with information prepared or acquired by criminal justice agencies, including the court, the Ministry of Justice, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the National Police Agency, and the Korea Coast Guard, in the handling of criminal cases such as investigation, prosecution, trial, and execution. It was prepared to computerize the document preparation of criminal justice institutions and realize a speedy and transparent criminal justice process by jointly utilizing the information of each institution. The Criminal Justice Common System was first established in 2010 and has been in operation for over 10 years. Accordingly, in 2018, the Ministry of Justice, the prosecution, the police, and the Korea Coast Guard jointly announced a “planned project for establishing the next-generation criminal justice information system (KICS)” to provide intelligent criminal justice services based on the latest IT technology. In addition, the Ministry of Justice submitted a bill on the use of electronic documents in criminal justice procedures along with the establishment of a criminal justice information system to realize the digitalization of criminal justice procedures on January 29, 2021, and is currently pending in the National Assembly. The convenience and speed of criminal justice procedures will increase as all documents are digitalized through the digitalization of criminal justice procedures and electronic documents are transferred on the system. Problems such as deepening of information inequality among data subjects and data claimants may arise. To this end, it is necessary to prepare a system and laws for the differential management and disposal of personal information for shared information, and discriminatory information disclosure according to the right to request information disclosure.

형사사법기관의 디지털증거전송체계 도입방안

김일권,김기범 한국형사정책연구원 2017 형사정책연구 Vol.112 No.-

This dissertation aims to investigate realities in which digital evidences are moved from end to end of criminal justice process and introduce legal and technical suggestions to allow digital evidence to be exchanged fully digitally at the state-wide level. Although S. Korea has seen a big advance made in sharing information and documentation of a criminal case electronically since the KICS system was implemented in 2010, digital evidence is still printed out or stored onto a physical media such as a CD and is provided to prosecutor or court physically. Such practices may cause digital evidence and its meta-data to be lost or damaged and increase burden of proof for integrity and chain of custody over the course of travelling among criminal justice services. Also digital evidence stored onto a physical media may limit availability of digital evidence due to its short life-span in terms of evidential value. In consequence, these realities and practices deter to introduce electronic criminal proceedings which allow case documents and relevant evidence to be transferred totally electronically. Thus, we may want to ask ourselves which one would be better? To revamp inefficient realities or to fix a mirror reflecting them? It is a very clear choice. The current criminal justice system should be reshaped to embrace a new digital evidence exchange system called KoDEX(Korea Digital Evidence Exchange) which is an ICT infrastructure where digital evidence can be transferred, stored, analyzed, retained, discovered, and disposed digitally so that the KoDEX would improve reliability and availability of digital evidence as well as ease of access and retrieval. The KoDEX, also, facilitates e-discovery and enables the accused and their attorney to access digital evidence online. Fortunately, the electronic summary court regarding driving while intoxicated or unlicensed shows partial feasibility of electronic criminal proceedings by replacing traditional paper-base proceedings. For this purpose, 「Promotion Of The Digitalization Of The Criminal Justice Process Act」 and other relevant laws need to be adjusted. An electronic way in which a digital evidence is transferred throughout criminal justice process and examined in a trial should be stipulated. And a printout or a physical media for digital evidence can be used only in a exceptional condition. Also, the KoDEX will be a repository for digital evidence including digitalized documentary evidence. Consequently, regulations and supervision of administrative and judicial regime should be emphasized to prevent misuse or abuse of stored information on top of a new perspective on balance between objectives of criminal justice and protection of personal information. Hopefully, the KoDEX will become a thought-provoking suggestion and a leading model to achieve the aim of fully digitalized criminal justice system. 본 논문은 경찰・검찰・법원 등 형사사법기관이 형사사법정보시스템(KICS)을 이용하여 디지털증거를 전송할 수 있는 체계를 설계하고 이에 관한 입법 방안을 제시하고자 한다. 우리나라는 2010년에 형사절차전자화법을 제정하여 전국에 형사사법정보시스템을 구축하였음에도 여전히 디지털증거를 출력하거나 USB・CD 등 정보저장매체에 저장하여 검찰에 송부하고 있다. 형사사법기관이 디지털증거를 물리적으로 송부하면 잦은 복사・복제로 정보통제가 어렵고, 손・망실도 우려된다. 파일의 속성정보(메타데이터)가 소실되어 증거가치가 떨어지고, 증거 이동으로 관리연계성에 대한 입증부담도 커진다. 나아가 형사사건이 전자소송으로 진행될 수 있는 가능성을 차단하고 있다. 형사절차전자화법과 약식전자문서법은 형사사법정보시스템을 이용하여 전송할 수 있는 대상에 디지털증거를 포함하지 않았고, 형사소송법은 피의자 진술영상녹화물에 대해 봉인・기명날인할 것을 요구하여 제도화하지 못하고 있다. 다행히 약식전자문서법에서 음주・무면허사건에 한하여 전자문서(전자화문서 포함)를 전송해 약식명령하도록 입법화하여 디지털증거전송체계 도입에 대한 가능성이 보이고 있다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해 형사소송의 전 과정에서 형사사법정보시스템을 이용한 디지털증거를 전송할 수 있는 체계를 구축할 필요가 있다. 형사절차전자화법을 중심으로 관련법을 정비하고, 디지털증거에 대한 전송 원칙과 증거조사 시 전자적 열람 원칙을 명문화하여야 한다. 디지털증거 이용과 관련하여 피고인・변호인에 대한 온라인 열람・복사권을 허용하고, 위험방지 및 프로파일링에 제한적으로 사용하기 위한 입법적 근거를 마련해야 한다. 나아가 몰수형을 선고받은 경우 경찰과 검찰의 시스템에서 삭제하고 이를 확인할 수 있는 절차를 마련함과 동시에 대통령 소속 개인정보보호위원회의 감독과 사법적 통제장치를 도입할 필요가 있다. 형사절차전자화법의 개정과 전송체계의 도입으로 우리나라가 형사사법정보화 분야에서 국제사회의 선도국가로 기여할 수 있기를 기대해 본다.

북한 형사보상제도의 존부 확인을 통한 북한 형사소송제도의 이해

김정환 한국형사법학회 2019 刑事法硏究 Vol.31 No.1

With the data of South and North Korea, I examined whether a criminal compensation system exists in North Korea and if it does not, the reason behind it. This examination was also done to understand the criminal justice system that North Korea had inherited from a socialist legal system based on the political ideologies of Marx. In the case of the North Korean Criminal Procedure Law, there is an 'arrest and detention system' by investigative agencies, and there are 'appeal system' and 'review system' which are disagreement means against court trial results. If there is an objection to arrest, detention and trial results, there is a system in which the state compensates those who are exonerated from criminal charges after arrest or execution. This is called criminal compensation . North Korea stated in its report to the U.N. Human Rights Commission that there is a criminal compensation provision. However, there are no explicit rules on criminal compensation under the North Korean Constitution, and no independent criminal compensation law has been confirmed to exist. It is difficult to say whether there is a criminal compensation system in North Korea. This is because although there has been no confirmation of existence of a law in North Korea that stipulates criminal compensation, there is testimony from a North Korean defector that states there is a system that compensates for the damage caused by arrest and detention. Also there is a system called ‘Shin So' for recovering from violations related to works in prosecution and trial as well as legal sanctions. But if you consider what the nature of criminal compensation is, you can answer whether there is criminal compensation in North Korea. The criminal compensation system is designed to redress the violations a person who is later found not guilty received through investigation and trial. In North Korea, however, the principle of innocence is denied based on the principle of collectivism, and the first trial conducted by a court composed of people's jurors is most important. To use ‘Shin So’, it is confirmed that the person who submitted the petition must prepare and submit accurate data. In the nature of the North Korean criminal lawsuit, it is logical that the system of genuine criminal compensation does not exist in North Korea. In the concept of rights based on collectivism, there is a fundamental limitation in guaranteeing the basic rights of an individual. In North Korea, which gives priority to the whole rather than the individual, it is difficult to have a criminal compensation that was born out of enlightened humanitarianism and philosophy of natural law. 북한 형사소송법을 보면 수사기관에 의한 체포․구속제도가 존재하고 법원의 재판에 대한 불복수단인 상소제도와 재심제도가 존재한다. 이와 같이 체포․구속과 재판에 대한 불복수단이 존재하면, 체포․구속이나 형집행 후 불복수단에 의해서 사후적으로 범죄혐의에서 벗어난 사람에 대해서 국가가 그 피해를 보상해주는 형사보상제도가 존재하게 된다. 그런데 북한의 ‘조선민주주의인민공화국 법전’을 보면, 형법․형사소송법․자금세척방지법․도로교통법․의료법․공중위생법 등이 존재하지만 형사보상을 직접적으로 규정한 법률은 찾아볼 수 없다. 아직까지 북한의 형사보상제도에 대해서 다룬 연구논문을 찾아볼 수 없는 상황에서, 체계를 갖춘 형사사법제도가 존재하는 북한에서 형사보상제도가 존재하지 않는 것인지, 만약 형사보상제도가 존재하지 않는다면 그 이유는 무엇인지를 남․북한의 자료를 통해 검토해 보았다. 이것은 19세기 마르크스의 정치철학에 기반을 둔 사회주의 법체계를 계수한 북한 형사사법제도를 이해하는 과정이었다. 북한에 형사보상제도가 존재하는지 여부에 대해서 단정하기는 어렵다. 형사보상을 규정한 북한의 법률은 확인되지 않지만, 체포․구속으로 인한 피해를 보상하는 제도가 있다는 북한이탈주민의 진술이 있고 검찰과 재판의 업무와 관련된 침해와 법적 제재의 침해에 대해서 회복할 수 있는 ‘신소’라는 제도가 존재하기 때문이다. 그러나 형사절차에서 ‘무죄추정원칙’의 인정을 전제로 하여 형사사법기관의 고의․과실 여부에 관계없이 사후적으로 무죄라고 확정된 사람이 수사와 재판을 통해 받은침해를 구제해 주는 것이 형사보상의 본질이라는 점을 생각해 보면, 북한에 형사보상이 존재하는지 여부에 답할 수 있다. 북한에서는 집단주의 원칙에 기초하여 무죄추정의 원칙이 부정되고, 인민참심원들로 구성된 법원이 행하는 제1심재판이 가장 중시된다. 신소의 경우에도 신소제기자가 정확한 자료를 준비하여 제출하여야 한다. 집단주의 원칙을 바탕으로 하는 권리의 개념에서는 개인의 기본적 권리의 보장에는 근본적인 한계가 있게 된다. 전제군주주의를 극복하고 계몽적 인도주의와 자연법사상에서 탄생한 형사보상제도가 개인보다는 전체를 우선시하는 북한에서 존재하기는 어렵다. 북한 형사소송제도의 특성상 진정한 의미의 형사보상은 북한에 존재하지 않는다고 평가된다.

중국의 회복적 사법과 형사화해제도

민수현(Min, Shouxuan) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2017 法學硏究 Vol.28 No.1

These days, the state punishes the perpetrator and sometimes strengthen criminal law to reinforce punishment on the perpetrator based on acts of the perpetrator. Such punitive measures are the restitutive justice we have known well. However, the perpetrator is not necessarily repentant for his/her wrong-doing under such punitive measures. Like this, there is a limit to restitutive justice. Because of the limitations of restitutive justice, we not only accept the punishment on the perpetrator but also have a doubt if it is righteous for only the state have a right of punishment poewer. In order to solve this doubt, we come up with a new paradigm, restorative justice, that is contrary to the exist. Restorative justice is aimed at not simply criticizing the perpetrator but restoring the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. On the other hand, criminal mediation system, newly introduced as restorative justice in the revised Criminal Procedure Law of China in 2012, has a significant meaning since criminal mediation system emphasized communication between the perpetrator and the victim and tried to reconcile the perpetrator and the victim through letting the victim participate in the criminal case of the perpetrator. This paper describes the contents of criminal mediation system under the current Criminal Procedure Law, starting from how criminal mediation system as a part of restorative justice could be introduced in China, which has heavy penalty system. In addition, since criminal mediation system does not sufficiently reflect ideology of restorative justice in contrast to intention to implement original idea of restorative justice, the essential meaning of restorative justice has been distorted. To solve the problem, this paper has proposed some improvements.

소년형사사건과 국민참여재판

최종식(Choi, Jong-Sik) 한국형사법학회 2008 刑事法硏究 Vol.20 No.4

Adopting Civic Participation System in the Juvenile Justice has a positive point which can not only have national understanding and trust on the Juvenile Justice but also obtain national agreement and cooperation to make various policies for delinquency prevention and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. However, it is necessary that the Juvenile Justice should be considered in terms of protecting juveniles when Civic Participation System is adopted to the Juvenile Justice. Thus, there are lots of points to reconsider and adjust because Civic Participation Trials as a form of the Jury System are not appropriate in the Juvenile Justice. First, there is no exception even in the Juvenile Law in terms of that the criminal justice should be practiced on democratic justice, transparency, fairness, and reliance. For instance, a citizen who belongs to a community can participate in the Juvenile Justice, so that the effective and various systems for the juvenile delinquents can be produced. Therefore, the Juvenile Justice needs a certain type of Civic Participation System unlike adult criminal cases. Second, I believe that Civic Participation Trials as a form of the Jury System are not proper for juvenile protection cases and juvenile criminal cases as well. Third, it is difficult to expect that Civic Participation Trials as a form of Jury System recognize the full reason of protective treatments and send the case to a Juvenile Court. And yet, in the case, the presiding judge and lawyer should explain fully the jury about the Juvenile Law, its meaning, the kinds and contents of protective treatments, and the aim of the article 50 of Juvenile Law. Fourth, pre-sentence inquiry and examination principle should be prepared, adjusted, and added in the System of Civic Participation Trials. Fifth, as for the alleviating measure of death penalty and life imprisonment on the Juvenile Law, the Law of Civic Participation Trials should be revised in order to apply for juveniles from the ages of 14 to 17. Finally, as for the Juvenile Justice, Civic Participation System by Continental mixed Jury System is a lot better than Civic Participation Trials by the Jury System although the Continental mixed Jury System does not have strong points only. Moreover, it has more favorable and advantageous points for juvenile protection and rehabilitation. In the end, I would like to suggest that we had better adopt Civic Participation System by Continental mixed Jury System for the Juvenile Justice, aside from the Adult Criminal Justice.

형사조정제도에 관한 연구

김창렬 ( Kim Chang-ryeol ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.26 No.3

국민들이 형사사법에 참여하는 대표적인 제도가 형사조정제도이다. 형사조정제도는 ‘범죄피해보호법’에 법률적 근거가 있다. 법률제정 이전과 이후 제도를 비교해 볼 필요가 있었다. 법률제정 이전에 형사조정제도는 범죄피해자지원센터 내의 화해중재위원회에서 화해중재를 하였다. 이후 전국 검찰청에 대응해 설립된 범죄피해자지원센터 형사조정위원회의 형사조정제도를 전국적으로 확대하여 시행하였다. 범죄피해자지원센터에 있던 형사조정위원회를 검찰청에 두었다. 법률제정 이후에 형사조정제도가 많이 활성화 되었는데 대검찰청이 시한부 기소중지를 도입하고 형사조정기간을 연장하였기 때문이다. 대검찰청은 형사분쟁을 최종적으로 처리하기 위하여 종합대책을 마련하였기 때문이다. 형사조정제도의 유용성이 널리 인식되어 형사조정을 통하여 분쟁을 해결하려는 당사자가 증가했기 때문이다. 형사조정제도의 가장 중요한 목적은 범죄피해에 대한 실질적 회복이다. 다음 목적은 회복적 사법의 이념 실현인데 지역사회의 동참을 통한 형사분쟁의 실질적 해결이다. 형사 조정제도가 제대로 정착하기 위해서는 제도에 대한 실효성이 중요하다. 그러나 현재의 형사조정제도는 형사조정결과에 대한 조정 내용을 강제할 방법이 없다는 문제가 있다. ‘제소 전 화해’, ‘재판상 화해’, ‘집행력 있는 공증증서’의 형태로 강제 집행력을 부여해야 할 것이다. 형사조정제도가 ‘범죄피해자보호법’에 규정되어 있는 것도 문제이다. ‘범죄피해자보호법’과 분리된 독자적인 법률의 제정이 필요하다. 단기적으로는 ‘범죄피해자보호법’을 개정하여 지금까지 드러난 문제점을 개선해야 한다. 장기적으로는 ‘민사조정법’과 같은 형사 조정절차를 포함하는 단일의 ‘형사조정법’을 제정하여야 한다. A representative system in which citizens participate in the criminal justice system is the Criminal Mediation System. The Criminal Mediation System has a legal basis in the ‘Crime Victim Protection Act’. There was a need to compare before and after legislation. Prior to the enactment of the law, the Criminal Mediation System was mediated by the Reconciliation Arbitration Committee within the Crime Victims Support Association. The Committee of Criminal Mediation of the Crime Victims Support Association, established in response to the Nationwide Prosecutors' Office. The Committee of Criminal Mediation at the Crime Victims Support Association was placed at the Prosecutor's Office. After the enactment of the law, the Criminal Mediation System became more active, as the Supreme Prosecutors' Office introduced the suspension of prosecution and extended the period of criminal mediation. The Supreme Prosecutors' Office has set up comprehensive measures to finally deal with criminal disputes. This is because the usefulness of the Criminal Mediation System is widely recognized and the number of parties trying to resolve the dispute through criminal mediation has increased. The most important purpose of the Criminal Mediation System is a substantial recovery of crime victim. The next objective is the realization of the ideal of restorative justice, which is a practical solution to the criminal dispute through community involvement. In order for the Criminal Mediation System to settle properly, the effectiveness of the system is important. However, the present Criminal Mediation System has a problem that there is no way to enforce the adjustment of criminal mediation results. It is necessary to give compulsory executive power in the form of ‘reconciliation before petition’, ‘reconciliation in court’, and ‘notarized certificate of enforcement’. It is also a problem that the Criminal Mediation System is stipulated in the ‘Crime Victim Protection Act’. It is necessary to establish independent law separate from ‘Crime Victim Protection Act’. In the short term, the ‘Crime Victim Protection Act’ has been amended to improve the problems that have been revealed so far. In the long run, a single ‘Criminal Mediation Act’ should be enacted that includes criminal mediation procedures such as the ‘Judicial Conciliation Of Civil Disputes Act’.

경찰단계의 형사조정제도 도입 필요성 및 방향에 관한 연구

구현자(Gu Hyun Ja) 사단법인 안전문화포럼 2018 안전문화연구 Vol.- No.3

이제는 우리나라 형사사법 절차 내에 새로운 패러다임으로 정착한 형사조정(Criminal Mediation)이 시행된 지 올해로 10년째를 맞이했으며, 그 운용 성과도 기대 이상으로 성공적이라는 평가를 받게 되었다. 일반적으로 형사조정은 ‘형사사건을 조정에 의뢰하고 그 결과를 사건처리 또는 판결에 반영하는 일체의 절차를 말한다. 여기서의 조정이란 중립적 위치에 있는 제3자가 사건 당사자를 중재하고 쌍방의 주장을 절충하여 화해에 이르도록 도와주는 것’이라고 일컬어진다. 오늘날 형사조정은 범죄피해자의 피해회복을 가장 중요시하고 있으며 아울러 피해자와 가해자의 관계회복을 도모하고 지역사회 내에서 발생한 분쟁의 해결에 지역사회의 참여를 권장하고 있다는 측면에서 형사조정은 회복적사법의 이념을 실천하는 대표적 프로그램으로 인정받고 있다. 회복적사법 프로그램은 분쟁에 개입하는 시기가 빠르면 빠를수록 피해회복이나 관계회복에 가장 효과적이라는 것에는 더 이상 이견은 없는 듯하다. 2008년에 형사조정을 경험한 사건 당사자들을 대상으로 실시한 형사조정제도의 실효성에 대한 평가 연구에서 형사조정을 경험한 사건 당사자들의 60.8%가 ‘형사조정제도가 경찰단계에서 실시하는 것이 좋다’라고 응답하였다. 또한 2015년에는 형사조정을 경험한 사건당사자들의 61.9%가 경찰단계에서 형사조정제도를 실시하는 것을 찬성하고 있다고 조사되었으나, 아직까지도 우리나라 전체 범죄건수의 90%이상을 사건 발생 초기에 수사를 담당하고 있는 경찰단계에서 형사조정제도가 시행되지 않고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 우리나라 전체 범죄사건에 대한 현황 분석과 전문가 심층면접을 통하여 경찰단계의 형사조정제도 도입 가능성을 진단하였다. 그 결과를 토대로 경찰단계에서의 형사조정제도 도입 방안을 제안하고자 하였다. Since criminal mediation system at the prosecution level was introduced in 2007, a lot of criminal cases have been dealt through mediation process. Criminal mediation based on restorative justice paradigm received favorable evaluation among practitioners and scholars in that mediation process enables victim to overcome the traumas of crimes, offenders to genuinely feel remorse and compensate for the loss and damage of the victim, and criminal justice agencies to save cost and time. However, there has been an argument that criminal mediation system at the police level needs to be introduced, simply because police is the very first stage of the criminal justice system. Police level mediation process is expected to produce more effective outcomes than prosecution level mediation process. The purpose of the current study is to investigate whether criminal mediation system can be introduced at the police level. In order to achieve the goal of this study, current situation of criminal case processing, criminal mediation system at the prosecution level, restorative justice paradigm which provides theoretical basis of mediation system, research on the effectiveness of criminal mediation system, and restorative policing efforts in several countries are throughly reviewed. Although the research findings of this study has a limitation to be generalized by using qualitative interview method, it will provide useful preliminary information for introducing police level criminal mediation system.

다산(茶山) 정약용(丁若鏞)의 형사사법관(刑事司法觀)과 형사정책적(刑事政策的) 시사점(示唆點)

김진혁 ( Jin Hyeok Kim ) 경남대학교 인문과학연구소 2010 人文論叢 Vol.25 No.-

현대사회의 형사사법제도는 본래의 목적을 달성하지 못하고 있으며, 그것은 범죄문제에 대해 총체적인 시각으로 접근하지 못하고 있는데 기인하는 면이 있다고 보여진다. 형사사법기관은 범죄통제에 있어 권력화 되어 주도적으로 역할을 수행하고 있지만 범죄는 사회문제이기 때문에 사회공동체의 협력 없이는 목적을 달성할 수 없다. 이러한 관점에서 다산 정약용의 사법관은 현대 형사사법제도에 시사하는 바가 크다고 할 것이다. 정약용의 형사사법관은 인간에 대한 애정을 바탕으로 하고 있다. 정약용의 사상처럼 인간위주의 형사사법을 시행하기 위해서는 우선적으로 형사사법기관의 체질개선이 필요하다고 생각된다. 시민을 존중하고 비권력화하려는 노력을 보여야 한다. 또한 형사사법공무원의 바탕은 정의감과 도덕성이어야 할 것이다. 각 기관은 목표달성을 위해 한 기관처럼 협력하여야 하며 범죄자를 처벌함으로써 역할을 끝내는 것이 아니라 그들이 온전히 사회에 복귀할 수 있도록 지속적으로 지원하여야 한다. 한편 사회환경적 측면에서는 사회공동체가 회복되어져야 할 것이다. 지속적 인간관계를 바탕으로 한 사회공동체가 재생되고 그 구성원들이 서로 가족처럼 상대에 애착을 갖게 된다면 이것이 1차적인 사회안전망인 것이다. 그렇게 된다면 형사사법기관은 사회공동체와 협력하여 범죄경력자나 비행행위자 등을 함께 처우할 수 있게 될 것이다. 가장 중요한 것은 범죄자에 대한 적대감을 버리고 구성원으로서 재수용 할 수 있도록 사회적 인식을 전환하는 것이다. Criminal justice system in the modern society has not fulfilled its original purpose, and it seems due to the fact that the system has failed to take a comprehensive approach to criminal cases. The judiciary is taking a leading role in controlling crimes as the authorities, but as crime is a social problem, it can be resolved without cooperation from a social community. In this regard, Yak yong Chung`s view on the judiciary carries significance with regard to the modern criminal justice system. Dasan Yak yong Chung`s view on the criminal Justice is based on affection toward human being. For this reason, his teaching goes beyond his time and becomes relevant even today. As Yak yong Chung said, it seems necessary to innovate criminal justice institutions first in order to realize people oriented criminal justice. Efforts need to be made to reduce types of crimes and realize de empowerment. In addition, criminal justice officials need to be equipped with a sense of justice and integrity. Each institution needs to make cooperation to achieve purposes as if they were one body, and they need to focus on helping criminals returning to the society instead of being preoccupied with punishing them. In the meantime, a social community that existed in the past needs to be restored from the socio environmental perspectives. If a social community is restored based on consistent human relationships and if its members are attached to one another as if they were one family, it will create the first round of social safety net. If so, criminal justice institutions would be able to cooperatewith the social community to deal with career criminals or culprits. What is the most important thing is to change perception in the society so that hostility against criminals can be overcome and they can be accepted to the society once again.

한국 형사사법제도에서의 견제와 균형 원칙에 대한 비교법적 연구

강성용(Kang, Sung Yong) 한국형사정책학회 2018 刑事政策 Vol.30 No.2

The Prosecutor s Office, an organization carrying out an imperative role in the criminal justice system, is a legacy of the principle of checks and balances attainable through a functional separation of powers. The principle of checks and balances achievable through a functional separation of powers has been recognized as a natural law based on an intrinsic human nature applicable to all times and places by all the states, and even long before the emergence of the concept of state as a sovereignty. However, ironically in Korea, the principle which brought forth the Prosecutor s Office in the criminal justice system has been collapsed by the Prosecutor s Office itself. Even when no checks and balances on the natural function of the Prosecutor s Office―prosecution authority as its name signifies―exists in Korea unlike the other states compared such as U.S, U.K, France and Germany in this research, Korea is the only state where the Prosecutor s Office dominates an additional crucial function―investigation authority―in the criminal justice system. A discretionary authority to request a warrant as an indispensable investigative measure has been monopolized by the Prosecutor s Office. Furthermore, the Prosecutor s Office is prescribed with a robust authority to direct investigations of the National Police Agency backed up by a legal obligation of police officers to obey the directions of prosecutors and an authority to request a removal or disciplinary action against disobeying police officers. The Prosecutor s Office are provided with personnel and material resources as well as a legal authority to actually investigate crimes by itself. The global standard is checks and balances attainable through functional separation of investigation and prosecution. However, despite of the fact that Korea requires a strict functional separation of investigation and prosecution to incorporate the principle of checks and balances into its criminal justice system more than any other states compared as checks and balances on the prosecution authority as a natural authority of the Prosecutor s Office is absent, the Prosecutor s Office in Korea dominates even investigations in addition to prosecutions. We have witnessed serious negative outcomes brought by the collapse of checks and balances and functional separation of powers allowing excessive or insufficient exercises of authorities by the Prosecutor s Office on its own discretion. Sadly, people―the ultimate source of any and all governmental power―have lost their belief in the Prosecutor s Office which was supposed to establish and promote the fairness and rule of law. Prosecutors are not angels but men. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. Now it is time for the Prosecutor s Office in Korea to return to its original position in accordance with the principle of checks and balances and a functional separation of powers which gave birth to the Prosecutor s Office in the criminal justice system. For this purpose, by analyzing impartial and proper methodological principles of comparative legal studies on the criminal justice system, this paper aims to provide the answers to the following questions: what and why important is the principle of checks and balances and a functional separation of powers as a natural law; in what manner and degree does the criminal justice system of other states comply with the principle; and what is the future direction and current problem of the criminal justice system of Korea from the perspective of such principle.