범죄피해자 지원센터 설립의 경과

조균석(Kyoon Seok Cho) 한국피해자학회 2023 被害者學硏究 Vol.31 No.2

형사재판절차에서의 범죄피해자 참가제도의 도입 방안

조균석(Cho, Kyoon Seok) 한국피해자학회 2010 被害者學硏究 Vol.18 No.1

In the criminal justice system, one of the reforms essential to protecting the individual dignity of crime victims and helping them to recover from the injuries of crime is to give crime victims the right to participate in criminal procedures, not as 'parties of criminal cases' but as 'parties of criminal justice proceedings in their criminal cases.' Although the amended Criminal Procedure Act of 2007 contains much improvement in protecting the rights of crime victims, the direct participation of victims in the criminal justice proceedings has not been systematically guaranteed. The recent attempt by the Korean Ministry of Justice to enact a law for victims' direct participation in the criminal justice proceedings and to investigate similar systems of other countries (e.g., Germany, Japan) has been deemed very desirable. In order to adopt a direct participation system for crime victims, two possible ways are presently being considered. In the first proposal, crime victims become adverse parties in criminal trials (as in China or Germany). This proposal would require wide-ranging reforms of the current structure of the criminal litigation. Under the second way, crime victims are still participants in the criminal proceedings, but their right to and scope of participation is broadly expanded (as in Japan). This latter system allows the court to maintain-or only slightly modify-present criminal justice practices. I suggest the implementation of a victim participation system in Korea based primarily on the second model, but allowing crime victims abroad range of rights to participate in the criminal procedure, eventually admitting crime victims as quasi-adversarial parties at trial. After the initial implementation of the system, I believe that the second step is to move toward legislation following the first participation model. However, since the first model requires such tremendous changes in the present Korean criminal justice system, close monitoring of the victim participation model and further public discussions on this topic should be a prerequisite for adopting this model. The details of the victim participation system that I propose in this article are as follows. Victims of specific violent crimes or sexual offenses (i.e., those who are the most needed to participate in the criminal justice procedures) will be conferred the following rights: the right to attend on trial date, the right to state an opinion against the prosecutor's exercise of discretion, the right to request evidence, the right to examine a witness, the right to examine any and all defendants, and the right to state an opinion on the finding of facts and the application of law. Furthermore, the crime victims' right to present persons in certain reliable relationships in criminal proceedings and their right to hold personal safety measures will be guaranteed more firmly based on the existing practices of exercising these rights. However, I disagree with the victim's right to interrogate witnesses through video or other transmission devices because this right does not fit well the key purpose of the victim participation system-i.e., the victim's direct participation in the trial. Lastly, I believe it is necessary to introduce the victim attorney system, within which the participating victims are able to substantially exercise their rights. The court-appointed defense attorney for the participating victims should also be considered in order to make this system more practical to indigent crime victims. Another change that is more than welcome is where crime victims assume the leading role in criminal justice procedures through a victim participation system. On the other hand, the victim participation system also contains the possibility of accelerating social violence in the form of personal revenge. Therefore, constant efforts to keep this system within the overall goal of criminal justice should be continued.

피해자지원센터의 설립을 회고하며

조균석(Kyoon Seok Cho) 한국피해자학회 2023 被害者學硏究 Vol.31 No.2

개정 형사소송법상 피해자보호제도의 운영 실태와 그 평가

조균석(Kyoon Seok Cho)(赵,均锡,) 한국형사소송법학회 2014 형사소송 이론과 실무 Vol.6 No.2

2007년 6월 1일 개정된 형사소송법은 공판중심주의의 강화를 주된 목적으로 한 것이지만, 동시에 피해자의 형사절차상 지위를 획기적으로 강화시키는 내용도 포함되어 있다. 즉, 개정 형사소송법은 ① 신뢰관계자의 동석(형소법 제163조의2, 제221조 제3항), ② 비디오 등 중계장치 등에 의한 증인신문(형소법 제165조의2), ③ 공판진행상황 등의 피해자통지(형소법 제259조의2), ④ 피해자진술의 비공개(형소법 제294조의3), ⑤ 피해자의 기록열람·등사(형소법 제294조의4)에 관한 규정을 신설함과 아울러, ⑥ 피해자진술권을 강화하고(형소법 제294조의2, 제294조의3), ⑧ 재정신청범위를 확대하였다(형소법 제260조). 일반적으로 개정 형사소송법은 피해자보호의 관심을 제고한 것으로 매우 긍정적으로 평가되고 있다. 실제로 개정 후 피해자보호제도의 활용도는 점진적이나마 높아지고 있는 것으로 나타나고 있다. 그러나 이러한 긍정적인 평가에도 불구하고 2007년의 개정은 범죄피해자를 형사절차의 당사자나 주체로 인정하거나, 피해자참가인이라는 소송상의 특별한 지위를 부여한 것은 아니라는 점에서 과도기적인 미완의 개혁이라고 볼 수 있다. 앞으로 형사절차상 피해자를 보다 충실하게 보호하기 위해서는 피해자참가제도와 피해자변호인제도가 도입될 필요가 있다. 나아가 피해자의 피해회복에서 한 걸음 더 나아가 가해자의 책임 인정과 반성을 전제로 상호 화해를 통한 종국적인 해결을 도모함으로써 회복적 사법의 이념을 실천할 수 있는 형사화해조정이 검찰단계뿐 아니라 형사절차의 모든 단계에서 실시될 수 있도록 형사소송법에 반영할 필요가 있다. Although the Criminal Procedure Act amended on June 1, 2007 has the main purpose to strengthen the principle of court-oriented trial, it also contains the contents aiming to strengthen the criminal procedural status of victims greatly at the same time. In other words, the amended Criminal Procedure Act not only added new provisions like ① Presence of Persons Reliable Relationship (the Criminal Procedure, Act163-2, Article 221, Paragraph 3), ② Examination of Witness through Video or Other Transmission System (the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 165-2), ③ Notice to Victims of trial progress, etc. (the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 259-2), ④ Non-disclosure of Victim's Statements (the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 294-3), ⑤ Victim's Inspection and Copying of Litigation Record (the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 294-4) but also strengthened ⑥ Right of Victim to Make Statements (the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 294-2, Article 294-3), and also expanded ⑦ Petition of Adjudication (the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 260). In general, the amended Criminal Procedure Act is evaluated as very positive in that it raised interest in the protection of the victim. In fact, after amendment the utilization of victim protection system is shown to be increasing gradually. However, despite the positive evaluation like this, the amendment in 2007 may be considered as a transitional incomplete reform in the sense that it did not recognize the crime victim as a party or a subject of criminal proceedings, nor grant the crime victim a special status of lawsuit, i. e. the victim participant. In order to protect the victim in criminal proceedings more faithfully in the future, it is necessary to introduce both the victim participation system and the victim counsel system. In addition, one step further from recovery of the victim’s damages it is necessary to reflect the criminal reconciliation and mediation which is able to practice the ideal of restorative judicature in the Criminal Procedure Act by promoting an eventual resolution through mutual reconciliation on the premise that the offender admits his/her responsibility and reflects on the crime so that it may be effectuated not only in the prosecution stage but also in all stages of criminal proceedings. 2007年修改的刑事诉讼法引进了公判中心主义的法庭审理程序, 强化了当事人主义诉讼构造, 同时也显著地强化了被害人的刑事程序上的地位。具体的, 修订刑事诉讼法新增了关于①信赖关系者陪同(刑诉法第163条之2, 第221条第三款)②利用录像等中介装置等讯问(刑诉法第165条之2), ③向被告人通知公判进行状况等(刑诉法第259条之2), ④被害人陈述的不公开(刑诉法第294条之3), ⑤被害人的纪录阅览誊写(刑诉法第294条之4)的规定的同时, ⑥强化了被害人陈述权(性苏打第294条之2, 第294条之3), ⑦扩大了裁定申请的范围(刑诉法第260条)。 刑事诉讼法的修订是可以借机摆脱只能深切感受到被害人政策的缺乏的刑事司法现实的非常令人鼓舞的事, 因为提高了对被害人的关心获得了非常积极的评价。但是, 上文中的制度中并没有将犯罪被害人作为刑事程序的当事人或主体, 或者赋予被害人参加人这样诉讼上特别的地位, 从这一点出发可以认为以上制度还在过渡期尚未完成改革。 将来, 有必要被害人参加制度和被害人的被害人律师制度。此外, 从被害人的损害恢复再进一步, 在加害者承认责任和进行反省的前提下通过相互和解达成最终的解决, 使得能够实践恢复的司法理念的和解调停制度在刑事程序的所有阶段中能够实

회복 조건부 기소유예제도의 도입 방안

조균석(Cho, Kyoon Seok) 한국피해자학회 2021 被害者學硏究 Vol.29 No.1

검사 수사권의 축소・제한, 교정시설의 과밀 수용 등 시대 변화에 따른 국가 형사정책적 관점에서는 물론, 피의자의 사회복귀와 특별예방, 피해자의 피해 회복을 위한 개인 형사정책적 관점에서도 기소유예의 적극적인 활용이 요망되는데, 그중에서도 특히 형사정책적 효과가 큰 것으로 평가되는 조건부 기소유예를 더욱 활성화시킬 필요가 있다. 조건부 기소유예는 이미 개별법에 근거를 두고 시행되거나 개별법에 근거는 없지만 실무상 활용되고 있다. 그러나 소년범이나 가정폭력・아동학대・약물・성폭력사범 등 특정 범죄와 범죄자를 대상으로 하고, 그 조건도 범죄자의 선도・상담・교육・치료에 한정되어 있다는 한계가 있다. 따라서 조건부 기소유예의 형사정책적 효과를 지금보다 높이고 이를 활성화시키기 위해서는, 먼저 그 대상을 특정 범죄・범죄자에 한정하지 말고 일정한 범위의 모든 범죄・범죄자로 확대하고, 피해자의 피해 회복을 위한 조건을 추가할 필요가 있다. 말하자면, 조건부 기소유예의 패러다임을 회복적으로 전환할 필요가 있다. 비교법적으로 보면, 독일은 이미 1974년에 조건부 기소유예제도를 도입하여 시행해 오고 있고, 대만은 2002년 소송경제, 피의자의 사회복귀와 특별예방, 피해자의 손해회복을 위하여 조건부 기소유예제도를 새로 도입하였다. 두 나라 모두 피의자를 위한 조건뿐 아니라 피해자의 피해 회복을 위한 조건들을 붙일 수 있도록 하고 있다. 우리나라에서도 이를 참고하여 기소유예의 조건으로 피해배상, 형사조정절차에의 참여, 공익단체 등에의 금전 기부 등의 조건을 붙인 ‘회복 조건부 기소유예’를 도입할 필요가 있다. 이를 위해서는 먼저 기소편의주의를 규정한 형사소송법 제247조를 개정하여 조건부 기소유예의 근거규정을 마련하고, 피해 회복을 위한 조건들을 열거할 필요가 있다. 다만, 세부적인 시행 절차나 방법 등은 형사소송법에 규정하기 보다는 검찰사건사무규칙에 정하는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 회복조건들 중에서 특히 상징적 회복의 성격을 가진 금전기부를 보다 활성화할 필요가 있다. 우리나라의 정서상 기소유예의 조건으로 금전기부를 명하는 것에 대해서는 반대가 심할 것으로 예상되지만, 독일이나 대만에서도 조건부 기소유예의 조건 중에서 금전기부가 압도적으로 많다는 사실이 참고가 될 것이다. Positive use of the suspension of prosecution is requested not only from the perspective of the national-level criminal justice policy such as the reduction and restriction of prosecutor s right to investigate, and prison overcrowding and so on, but also from the perspective of criminal justice policy specialized in reintegration of offenders into the society, specific deterrence, and recovery of victims. Among the suspension of prosecution, it is necessary to further activate the conditional suspension of prosecution, which is considered to have an influential effect on criminal justice policy. Conditional suspension of prosecution is already implemented based on individual laws or is used in practice while being not based on individual laws in Korea. However, it specializes in a certain type of crimes and criminals, such as juvenile offenders, domestic violence, child abuse, drug abuse, and sexual violence, and the conditions for the suspension of prosecution are limited to the guidance, counseling, education, and treatment of criminals. Therefore, in order to increase and activate the criminal justice policy effect of conditional suspension of prosecution in the future, it is necessary for conditional suspension of prosecution to expand its target to a certain range of crimes and criminals and to add conditions for recovering damages suffered by victims. In other words, it is necessary to change the paradigm of conditional suspension of prosecution in a restorative justice manner. In light of comparative law, Germany has implemented conditional suspension of prosecution since 1974, and Taiwan introduced conditional suspension of prosecution for judicial economy, reintegration of offenders into the society and specific deterrence, and restoration of the harm suffered by the victim in 2002. Both countries allow conditional suspension of prosecution for the recovery of victims as well as that of suspects. It is necessary for Korea to introduce the ‘suspension of prosecution conditional on restoration’ system that stipulates compensation for damages, participation in criminal mediation procedures, and donation of monetary resources to public interest groups as conditions of the suspension of prosecution. To this end, it is necessary to amend Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which stipulates discretionary prosecution, to prepare for grounds for the conditional suspension of prosecution and list conditions for recovery of damage. However, it would be desirable to set detailed implementation procedures or methods in the Regulations on Prosecutorial Affairs rather than stipulating them in the Criminal Procedure Act. There is a need to activate monetary donations, representing symbolic recovery characteristics, among the recovery conditions. Although it is expected to be strongly opposed to allowing monetary donation for the conditional suspension of prosecution in Korea, it would be noted that monetary donation is a frequently used condition for the conditional suspension of prosecution in Germany and Taiwan.

피해자지원센터의 재도약을 위한 제언

조균석(Cho, Kyoon-Seok) 한국피해자학회 2016 被害者學硏究 Vol.24 No.1

This paper suggests policies that would help victim support center to redirect its future through recollection of the past and analysis of the present. The center has contributed to establishing the foundation of victim support and it is about time that we need to think back and rearrange the components in order to take a step forward. There have been continuous debates inside and outside of the center as to problems that the center possesses and the need of improvements to be made. These debates are essential for the center’s development. Thus we need to examine each and every suggested policy for its practicality and to implement one by one if possible. I was one of the founding members of victim support center who has been making suggestions on the ways in which the center can support the victims more effectively and improve its efficiency. Some of the solutions are to be implemented by the center whereas others are to be made by the government. In this context, I have made some of the suggestions that would help the center to overcome the challenges it is facing at the moment. In order for the center to be the best civilian victim support center, we need to sketch and proceed a mid-long term fundamental plan, reestablish the alliance, diagnose and assess the organization, and train the experts. Also, financial resources have to be stabilized and practical support measures need to be deployed. The most important point is to represent the victim’s interest at all times. I contribute this paper to the commemorative dissertation book for the honorary president Gun-Sik Min, hoping that the center can leap once again.

한ㆍ일 범죄인인도조약에서의 판결의 집행을 위한 범죄인인도

조균석(Cho Kyoon-Seok) 한국형사법무정책연구원 2009 형사정책연구 Vol.77 No.-

日本에서의 藥物犯罪收益의 剝奪制度

趙均錫(Cho Kyoon Seok) 한국형사법무정책연구원 1993 형사정책연구 Vol.14 No.-

일본 피해자참가제도 시행 7년의 운영 성과와 그 시사점

조균석 ( Cho Kyoon-seok ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2017 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.38

일본은 2008년 12월 범죄피해자가 형사절차의 참가하여 증인신문, 피고인질문은 물론 변론으로서의 의견진술을 할 수 있도록 하는 피해자참가제도를 도입하여 시행하고 있다. 지난 7년간의 운용 현황을 분석한 결과, 제도의 기본취지에 따라 순조롭게 운용되고 있음을 알 수 있다. 우리나라에서는 지난 2011년 일본 제도를 모델로 한 피해자참가제도의 도입 등을 내용으로 한 형사소송법개정법률안(2011년 정부안)을 정부에서 제출하였으나 제대로 된 논의도 이루어지지 못한 채 폐기된 바 있다. 그러나 피해자보호에 대한 사회의 요구가 더욱 커지고 있는 점에 비추어, 하루라도 빨리 피해자참가제도를 도입할 필요성이 커지고 있다. 새롭게 피해자참가제도를 도입할 경우, 일본에서의 운용 성과를 잘 분석하여 이를 참조할 필요가 있다. 이런 점에서 앞으로 피해자참가제도를 도입할 경우, 다음과 같은 사항을 고려하여야 할 것이다. 첫째, 대상범죄를 2011년 정부안 보다 넓게 인정하여야 하고 특히 교통범죄로 인한 피해자의 참가 의지가 큰 점에 비추어 이를 꼭 포함시켜야 한다. 둘째, 피해자참가인을 위한 변호사제도를 도입하고, 자력이 모자란 피해자에 대해서는 국선변호사의 조력을 받도록 하여야 한다. 셋째, 피해자가 참가를 원할 경우 거의 99% 허용하는 일본실무에 비추어 참가신청은 2011년 정부안과 마찬가지로 검사에게 하도록 하고, 나아가 검사의 권한행사에 대한 의견진술권을 보장하고 검사의 설명의무를 부과하여야 한다. 넷째, 피해자참가인의 권한을 보다 강화하여야 한다. 즉, 공판준비절차에의 출석을 허용하고, 정상사실 외에 범죄사실에 대해서도 증인신문이나 피고인신문을 할 수 있도록 하여야 하고, 변론으로서의 의견진술, 즉 논고·구형을 인정하여야 한다. 나아가 증거신청권이나 상소권도 부여할 필요가 있다. In December 2008, Japan introduced a victim participation system that allows the victim of crime to participate in criminal procedures to examine witnesses, to examine the defendant, as well as to state opinions as a pleading. As a result of analyzing the application of the past seven years, it is noted that the system is operated smoothly to the basic purpose. In 2011, The Korean government made a revised bill of the Criminal Procedure Law(The government proposal of 2011) based on the introduction of a victim participation system modeled on the Japanese system. However, it has been abandoned without any proper discussion. Yet, there is a growing need to introduce a victim participation system as soon as possible in view of the increasing demand of the protection of victims by society. When instituting a new victim participation system, it is necessary to analyze the operation outcome of Japan and refer to it. In this regard, the following points should be considered when introducing the victim participation system. First, I suggest the target crime be more widely accepted than the government proposal of 2011. In particular, victims of traffic crime needs to be included in view of the fact that they are eager to take part in. Second, the lawyer system for participating victim should be established and the victim who is lacking in self-sufficiency can be assisted by the court-appointed defence attorney for the participating victims. Third, in the light of the Japanese practice of allowing almost 99% of the victims to participate, the application for participation should be made to the prosecutor as in the case of the government bill of 2011. Moreover, it is required to guarantee the right to state an opinion against the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion and impose the duty of explanation on the prosecutor. Lastly, I propose the strengthened rights for the victim participant as follows: the right to attend on pre-trial date, the right to examine witnesses, the right to examine the defendant regarding the criminal facts as well as the circumstantial facts, and the right to state opinions as a pleading. Furthermore, it is necessary to authorize the right to request evidence or the right of appeal.

한국인에서 Adult Onset Still`s Disease의 임상상과 예후 인자에 관한 연구

조균석 ( Kyoon Seok Cho ),유대현 ( Dae Hyun Yoo ),윤형란 ( Hyung Ran Yun ),이명호 ( Myong Ho Lee ),이제경 ( Je Kyung Lee ),심승철 ( Seung Cheol Shim ),장대국 ( Dae Kook Chang ),유태석 ( Tae Seok Yoo ),고희관 ( Hee Kwan Koh ),김태 대한류마티스학회 1998 대한류마티스학회지 Vol.5 No.1

Objective: This study was undertaken to review the disease course, clinical and laboratory manifestations, prognosis and treatment of adult onset Still`s disease (AOSD) in Korea. Methods: Thirty-two patients with AOSD were enrolled from 1986 to 1997 in Hanyang University Hospital. Diagnosis of AOSD was based on the criteria proposed by Yamaguchi. We classified the disease course into self-limited, intermittent, or chronic disease course. Results: Twenty-four (75%) patients were female. Skin rash occurred in 28 (88%) patients, lymphadenopathy in 8 (25%), hepatomegaly in 4 (13%), and pericarditis in 2 (6%) out of 32 patients. The most commonly affected joints were knee joints (88%). Elevated LDH was seen in 18 (60%) patients and decreased CK in 17 (61%) patients. Rheumatoid factor was detected in 4 (13%) patients and ANA in 12(38%) patients. Anemia (Hb<10 g/dL) was seen in 13 (41%) patients and hypoalbuminemia (<3.5 g/dL) in 14 (52%) patients. Elevated ferritin (≥300 ng/mL) level was seen in 23 (79%) patients. Twenty-five (78%) patients had elevated serum transaminase. Bone marrow studies were performed in 16 patients. Nine out of 16 patients showed hyperplasia of the myeloid series and 2 patients displayed the features of a hemophagocytic syndrome. The mean duration of follow up of 32 patients was 32 months (range 3-108). Eight (27%) patients had a self-limited, 9 (30%) an intermittent, and 13 (43%) a chronic disease course. The hypoalbuminemia was significantly associated with an intermittent or chronic disease group(p<0.05). Thirty-two patients received systemic corticosteroids and 21 patients received single or combination of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs. Conclusion: We found that hypoalbuminemia at presentation was significantly associated with an unfavorable outcome, intermittent or chronic disease group. The clinical manifestations and disease course of AOSD in Korea were similar to those previously reported in other countries except significantly lower incidence of lymphadenopathy, hepatomegaly, and pericarditis.