국제형사재판소 공판단계에서의 피해자 절차참가에 관한 소고

강성영 대한국제법학회 2023 國際法學會論叢 Vol.68 No.2

Since the late 1970s, interests in Restorative justice have been emerging in South Korea among scholars, law practitioners and civil society. Restorative justice seeks to include those most directly affected by a crime in the justice system, namely victims. In the restorative justice process, victims are empowered to participate more fully than in the traditional system which focuses on the offender. However, victims in South Korea have traditionally been left out of criminal trials based upon strict retributive justice. The right to make statements by means of witness examination is the only general right of victims guaranteed under the current Criminal Procedure Act. In contrast, unlike the statutes of other international criminal tribunals, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court(‘ICC’) makes the interests of victims a high priority. Among other significant victim-oriented reforms, the Rome Statute grants victims extensive participatory rights in proceedings before the ICC. The victims’ participation regime at the ICC has indeed been hailed as one of the major achievements of modern day international criminal justice, calling it a landmark development or a significant step forward. But it is also one of the most controversial aspects of the ICC Statute. For instance, there are criticisms that the ICC to date has not lived up to the high expectations it has set for itself in this regard, and that its practice is inconsistent. The main reason for these arguments is largely based on Article 68(3), the key provision concerning victim participation, which states that: “where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered.” It was the ICC Statute drafters’ intention to leave it to the Rules and the judges to further explain and develop the victims’ participatory regime. Accordingly, establishing the modalities of victim participation is fully within the domain of judicial discretion. And so far the ICC’s jurisprudence has favoured broadening victim participants’ opportunities. Generally, Article 68(3) has permitted victims at the trial level to, inter alia: attend and participate in hearings; make opening and closing statements; question witnesses, the accused and or an expert; tender incriminating or exculpatory evidence, including challenging the admissibility of evidence. However, in practice, the ICC has not allowed victims themselves to participate in the hearing directly, and restricted the scope of the questions which victims may raise. Denying victims’ obligation to disclose incriminating or exculpatory information while the ICC acknowledges the possibility of submitting victims’ evidence is also problematic. Meanwhile, the ICC should be commended for its considerable efforts to give a voice to the victims of serious human rights abuses and to put the victims at the heart of the international criminal justice system. The introduction of victims’ active participation in proceeding in the ICC legal framework shows significant potential for providing new forms of justice to address and redress the harm suffered by victims. Although putting the ideals into practice has been challenging in the ICC, it is still highly needed to keep up the study on the ICC practice for the revision of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act in coming years. 1970년대 이후 서구 선진국에서 전통적인 형사사법정책에 대한 대안으로 등장한 회복적 정의(Restorative Justice)는 오늘날 피해자학의 발전과 더불어 새로운 형사사법 패러다임으로 많은 주목을 받고 있다. 1987년 피해자의 재판절차진술권 도입 등으로 대변되는 입법적 변화와 더불어, 피해자 절차권 보장 관련 형법・형사소송법 일부개정법률안이 지속적으로 제안되고 있는 추세에 비추어 보면, 최근의 형사정책 조류가 범죄피해자의 권리를 보다 확대, 강화하는 데 있음은 분명해 보인다. 그럼에도 불구하고 현행 법령에서는 피해자 신청에 의한 의무적 증인신문 방식 혹은 그 외의 방식에 의한 피해자진술권을 각 규정하고 있을 뿐 피해자의 일반적인 권리로서 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리, 수사서류 열람・등사권 등은 물론, 기일 통지권과 공판기일 출석권도 인정되지 않고 있다. 이에 반해 2002년 응보적 정의 및 회복적 정의 실현을 이념으로 출범한 국제형사재판소(International Criminal Court, 이하 ‘ICC’)는 당사자주의 모델을 택하고 있으면서도, 피해자의 재판절차 참가 및 배상, 보호 및 지원에 이르기까지 유례를 찾아보기 어려울 정도로 포괄적이고 선도적인 피해자 보호체제를 마련하였다. 이는 전통적으로 피해자에게 증인 이상의 어떠한 지위도 인정하지 않았던 국제형사재판 분야에서 매우 혁신적인 변화이자 발전이었다. ICC 출범 당시에는 이처럼 독특한(sui generis) 피해자참가제도에 대해 기대가 높았지만, 최근에는 관련 ICC 결정례가 비일관적이고 전통적인 소송구조에도 부합하지 않아 혼란스럽다는 지적이 많다. 실무상 혼란의 주된 원인은 피해자의 절차참가에 관한 일반 원칙규정인 로마규정 제68조 제3항이 지나치게 추상적이고 모호하게 규정되어 있다는 데 있다. 다시 말해, ICC 공판단계에서의 피해자 절차참가 방식은 거의 전적으로 재판부의 재량에 일임되어 있는데, 그 실무마저 일관되지 않다. 일반적으로 보면, ICC 공판절차에서 피해자는 심리 출석권 및 참여권, 모두진술권 및 최후변론권, 증인신문 및 피고인신문, 감정인신문 참여권, 증거제출 및 증거조사에 관한 의견진술 기회 등을 인정받고 있다. 다만 피해자의 직접 출석 및 진술은 매우 제한적으로 허용되고 있고, 피해자가 증인신문, 피고인신문 등에 참여하는 경우에도 피해자의 개인적 이해에 관한 사실에만 국한하여 신문할 수 있다. 무엇보다 로마규정에서 증거제출권이 소송당사자인 피고인과 검사에게 있다고 규정하고 있음에도 재판부 직권에 의한 증거제출 요청에 관한 로마규정 제69조 제3항 후문에 기해 피해자로 하여금 재판부의 명령에 기해 우회적으로 유무죄 관련 증거를 제출할 수 있도록 하는 것도 상당한 문제이다. 다만 ICC가 중대범죄자를 처벌함에 그치지 않고 재판과정에 피해자로 하여금 유의미하고 실효적으로 참가할 수 있도록 함으로써 피해자 절차권 보장과 아울러 사회 재건, 재통합을 꾀한다는 점에서 그 현대적 의미를 찾을 수 있고, 이는 당사자주의 소송구조 하에서 피해자를 위한 치유적・회복적 정의의 실현을 융합하는 일종의 법률적 실험일지도 모른다. 비록 피해자의 ICC 공판절차 참가방식에 있어 법리 구성 및 실무 운영 면에서 해결하여야 할 과제가 산적해 있지만, 그럼에도 피해자의 참가권을 강화하기 위한 ICC의 시도와 노력은 높이 평가되어야 할 것이다.

범죄피해평가의 형사사법절차상 효과 분석 - 판례분석을 중심으로 -

윤상연,김영수 한국피해자학회 2022 被害者學硏究 Vol.30 No.1

Since 2016, the police has been implementing the Victim Assessment System, which uses external experts to evaluate the victim’s damage in order to support victims suffering from crime. Several scholars have expressed concerns about the system as much as expected, but now it is positioned as a representative system of the police's victim support policy. The satisfaction of victims, the users, is high, and even some cases have been confirmed in determining the arrest or sentencing of suspects. However, only a few cases were insufficient to recognize the effect of the victim assessment system, especially the legal effect. In this study, in order to evaluate the effect of the victim assessment, the current status of the use of the victim assessment report in precedents was examined. It was expected that the stability of the effect could be confirmed by analyzing the frequency and method of using of the victim assessment report in the precedent. As a result of searching with the internet assess to judgment system, the victim assessment report was used as evidence in more precedents than expected. Among the 68 cases available for review, the victim assessment report was used as the basis for sentencing in most cases analyzed. In some precedents, it was also used as an evidence for judging facts, including judging elements such as mental injury or reinforcing the reliability of other evidences in cases where there was insufficient evidence. Various strategies were proposed to expand the target victims, strengthen the legal basis, and strengthen the effectiveness of the system for revitalizing the system that has been confirmed to be effective. 2016년부터 경찰에서는 범죄로 고통받는 피해자를 지원하기 위해 외부 전문가를 활용, 피해실태를 평가하는 범죄피해평가제도를 실시하고 있다. 학계에서는 이 제도에 대해 기대 못지않게 우려도 많이 표해 왔지만, 이제 범죄피해평가제도는 경찰의 피해자 지원정책을 대표하는 제도로 자리 잡는 분위기다. 이용자인 피해자의 만족도가 높고, 일부지만 피의자 구속 또는 양형 판단에 활용된 사례들이 확인되고 있어 기대감이 커지는 상황이다. 그러나 몇 가지 사례들만으로 범죄피해평가제도의 효과, 특히 법적인 효과를 인정하기에는 부족함이 있다. 본 연구에서는 범죄피해평가의 효과를 보다 확실하게 평가하기 위해 판례에서 범죄피해평가 보고서의 활용 현황을 살펴보았다. 판례에서 피해평가 보고서의 활용 빈도・방식 등을 분석하여 효과의 안정성을 확인할 수 있을 것으로 기대하였다. 판결서 인터넷열람 시스템을 활용하여 검색한 결과 범죄피해평가 보고서는 예상보다 많은 판례에서 증거로 활용되고 있었으며, 그중 열람 가능한 68건의 판례(검색 기간: 2016.4.~2022.3.) 내용을 분석한 결과 피해평가 보고서는 분석 대상 판례 대부분에서 양형의 근거로 활용되고 있었다. 일부 판례에서는 정신적 상해 등 구성요건을 판단하거나, 증거가 부족한 사건에서 다른 증거의 신빙성을 강화하는 등 사실판단의 근거로도 활용되고 있었다. 효과성이 확인된 범죄피해평가제도의 활성화를 위한 대상 피해자 확대 방안, 법적 근거 강화 방안, 그리고 제도의 실효성을 강화하기 위한 다양한 전략들을 제안하였다.

경찰의 범죄피해자 보호대책과 발전방향

윤승영(Yoon, Seung-Hyun) 한국피해자학회 2005 被害者學硏究 Vol.13 No.1

Generally, in a criminal procedure, a police criminal-investigation stage is the gateway of a criminal procedure where a criminal victim comes to touch first, and where victim can get a mental and corporal shock. therefore, the duty of the police for victim protection is very important. Recently, the police has began to get interested in the pain of criminal victim who is forgot in the meantime. Of course, there was the various trials to protect a criminal victim's right focusing on a woman and a juvenile victim for a long time. But, recently, in order to make more systematic victim protection system, the National Police Agency has installed the special office for victims, and has tried a positive change under the present legal system and budget. That is, the National Police Agency has installed the criminal victim measure office, revised the criminal victim protection rule, expanded the range for information offer, manufactured the "victim guide" and prepared for the national police station, and is carrying out education, training and public relations to the officers. Moreover, the National Police Agency will cooperate with the related organs positively, will do its best in formation and supporting of a victim support center as a member of the victim network of a community.

피해자의 정의 및 피해자 변호사 역할에 관한 소고

조미선 대한변호사협회 2021 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.499

Criminal procedure have developed in the adversarial system. In this system, while dealing with the rights of prosecutors and defendants, victims have been excluded. But there is criticism that victims should be encourage to participate in the criminal procedure and should be protected from other damage. Recently, Lime Case, one of the Financial Fraud case made in South Korea, victim’s lawyer was not recognized as victim’s lawyer and was not allowed to attend the trial. The court explained on the matter that the case does not suppose the victim and the prosecutor didn’t ask for attendance of victims’ lawyer in advance. It seems that the court think ‘victims’ as ‘people whose legal interests have been directly damaged due to a crime’. But this nomination of victims does not cover the people who have interests in participating criminal procedure or be protected and supported through out the criminal procedure. And, the court seems to haven’t allowed the right of attendance on the trial to victims’ lawyer. Though the procedure rights are guaranteed to the some of the victims’ lawyer, usually the lawyer of a case on Sexual Crime of Violence, it should be expanded to all of the victims’ lawyer. 과거 형사절차는 당사자주의 소송구조에 입각하여 검사의 기소권과 피고인의 방어권을 중심으로 발전하여 왔다. 피해자는 당사자주의 소송구조에서 당사자의 지위가 인정되지 않았고, 이에 따라 형사절차에서 배제되어 왔다. 그러나, 피해자가 형사사건의 직접적인 이해관계를 형성하고 있음에도 불구하고 형사절차에서 배제된다는 것은 적절하지 못하다는 비판이 제기되기 시작하였다. 학계 및 실무계에서는 이러한 관점의 변화를 수용하여, 피해자를 형사절차에 참가하는 방안을 마련하기 위한 논의를 시작하게 되었고, 이러한 논의를 기반으로 제도가 정비되거나 법률이 제정되었다. 최근 라임사태와 관련하여 피해자 변호사가 법정에 출입하고자 하였으나 그 출입을 제지당하는 사태가 발생하였다. 피해자 변호사의 출입을 허용하지 않았던 법원은, 본 사건은 법률상 피해자를 상정할 수 없는 사건이고, 검찰이 재정 증인으로 피해자 변호사를 신청하지 않았기 때문에 피해자 변호사의 법정출입을 허용하지 못하였다는 취지의 입장을 밝혔다. 법원은 ‘피해자’의 개념을 ‘형사실체법상 직접적인 보호법익을 향유하는 주체’로 파악하고 있는 것으로 보인다. 그러나, 오늘날 피해자 또한 형사절차에 참가할 이익을 가지고 있는 자로서 형사절차에의 참가를 보장하고, 피해자가 그 과정에서 2차 피해를 입지 않도록 제도적 방안을 마련하고 있는데, 피해자의 개념 또한 이러한 절차참가적 이익, 권리보호의 필요성의 측면에서 정의하여 ‘당해 혐의사실(범죄행위)로 인하여 법률상 불이익을 받게 된 자’로 확장하여 이해하는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 또한, 법원은 피해자 변호사에게 공판기일에 출석할 권한을 특별히 인정하지 않았던 것으로 보인다. 이는 현행법률상 피해자 변호사에 관한 규정(특히 권한에 관한 규정)이 성범죄 등에 관한 특별법에 국한되어 있고, 일반 형사소송법에 마련되어 있지 않아 적절히 보장되지 못하였던 것으로 보인다. 이에, 피해자 변호사를 모든 범죄에 대하여 인정하고, 피해자 변호사의 권한에 관한 규정을 일반법률(형사소송법)에 규정하는 방안을 검토할 필요가 있다.

피해자관련 요인과 양형: 폭력범을 중심으로

이민식(Lee, Min-Sik) 한국피해자학회 2009 被害者學硏究 Vol.17 No.2

This study tests the effects of victim-related factors on sentencing among Korean male and female violent criminals. The data come from a survey of 171 inmates in three correctional facilities in S. Korea, 2008. This study is a sort of retrospective one because sentencing as the dependent variable precedes the time point of survey. It is, however, relevant since we can utilize many victim-related factors as predictors that are usually not available in a survey of formal investigation or trial records. The biggest portions among male subjects' crime types are murder, sexual crimes, assault and injury while most of female subjects are murdereial The results are presented in a series of consecutive modelal The final model includes four demographic factors (gender, age, education, and religion), oortise gravity score, criminal career, as control variables, and oore victim-related factors such as number of victims, whether having a woman victim, whether having a victim uions age, whether having an aged victim, whether a victim drunken, whether a victim's provocation, whether having an old conflict with the victim, sympathy for the victims, and victim-offender relationship. Among the victim-related factors, the effects of 'number of victims,' 'whether having a victim under age,' 'whether a victim's provocation,' and 'sympathy for the victims,' were significant. The effects of control variables were mostly significant except that of education.

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.

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.

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.

한국의 피해자참가제도

김재중(Kim, Jae-Jung) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學硏究 Vol.22 No.1

Recently, the Criminal Law Revision Committee in the Department of Justice offers the desirable introductions into our victim participation system by providing five provisions on criminal procedure act §§ 294-4~ 294-9. 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 th 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 adoption of provisions to allow victims to participate in proceedings is an important change in the criminal procedure. Victims's right to participate in the proceedings is one of the main innovative features of the Court. Victim will have a right of Victim Impact Statement and Victim Statement Opinion in Korea. One of the court's main function is the establishment of truth and in this sense participation of victims may contribute to the accomplishment of this goal. A justice system cannot be complete without taking into account the existence of victims of crimes and what they have to say about the violence they have experienced during conflict situations.

초동수사와 피해자보호

김용세 ( Yong Se Kim ),김재민 ( Jae Min Kim ) 한국형사정책학회 2006 刑事政策 Vol.18 No.1

How the police investigators should respond properly to the criminal victim`s needs in the phase of preliminary investigation has an effect on victim`s rapid recovery from criminal impact. It is just because the Investigator`s behavioral patterns of being sensitive to the criminal victim`s needs make it possible for him to gain self-control and self-assurance. Such an investigator`s attitude could not only enhance the reliability of investigating authorities but also get the active cooperation from a victim easily. Finally, it inevitably contributes to catching the goal of investigation also. The importance of the criminal victim protection in the criminal investigation process, more than we have ever thought, has been widely known in these days. Recently, Korean police officer`s behavioral patterns for criminal victims have been remarkably improved than ever before, since the Office for Victims of Police Agency was established in 2004. This paper is mainly focused on the police investigator`s activity for criminal victim in preliminary investigation. A few following recommendations were proposed for improvement of behavioral patterns of victim protection in the course of investigation process. Firstly, several checkpoints which might be needed to assist victim in the phase of preliminary investigation were suggested. Secondly, the most essential and proper responses of investigators were introduced when they would receive the first call and arrive at the crime scene. Thirdly, to secure the victim`s personal safety, some of the guidelines regarding risk assessment were presented. Fourthly, the actual conditions of how victim would be offered information from investigators were analyzed. As a result, the several victim policies were recommended. Practice of these recommendations must empower the police investigators to get the credibility from all the people including the criminal victim.