http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
한국적 ‘검찰사법’ 체제의 탄생 ―일본적 ‘검찰사법’의 유산과 해방 후 입법의 결과―
문준영 법과사회이론학회 2009 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.37
It is often said that Korean public prosecutors are very powerful but there is no effective check on their power. The basic structure of the Korean criminal justice system and the public prosecutors’ organization is modeled after the Continental criminal justice system. Korean criminal justice was popularly called “prosecutorial justice” as Japanese one. It means that the prosecutor’s role and influences in criminal justice is very dominant. The public prosecutor’s centralized and hierarchical organization, political partisanship, and subordination to the government are popularly criticized as the opposite to their nature and function as a objective office or quasi-judicial officer. How to control the danger of politically abusing the prosecutorial power by government has been one of big issue in the judicial and political reform discussion. This article explores the origin of the Korean “prosecutorial justice,” and examines how the legal- institutional basis of the problematic phenomenon was made. First, it begins by reviewing “prosecutorial justice” of Modern Japan and colonial Korea in order to find the legacies such as the institution of prosecutor-general, theory about the unity or indivisibility of prosecutor, and the legislative proposals for the future. Second, it examines After-Liberation legal reform aimed at the de-inquisitorialization of the criminal justice system; it then reviews four issues and its legal results: prosecutorial discretion, admissibility of written evidence prepared by prosecutor and police in trial, prosecutor’s monopoly to apply warrant to the court, and changes in pre-trial procedure after abolishing the instruction(pre-trial investigation exercised by judge of instruction). Third, it reviews the characteristics of prosecutor’s organization reflected within the Public Prosecutor’s Office Act of 1949.
대한제국기 민사재판에서 관습의 규범적 역할 - 전통 사송의 성격과 관습법에 관한 논쟁에 붙여 -
문준영 경북대학교 법학연구원 2015 법학논고 Vol.0 No.52
It has been said that magistrate of Chosǒn Korea applied custom as a legal norm to judge civil cases in Korean legal historiography. This view began to be faced with a significant opposition by several authors arguing that traditional law and civil justice were not aware of the concept of custom/ customary law formed in the European legal historical context, nor its functional equilibrium. Agreeing with the authors, I feel that it is required to provide an alternative way of understanding to grasp the nature of the traditional civil justice and the function of custom. It cannot be negated that there could be a space and a role for custom which were necessarily questioned and referred to in the magistrate's court in the particular context. To verify this assumption, I extract and analyze scores of court decisions which include some words representing custom or usage, and which referred to a particular customary standard as one of significant points for ruling relevant case. This article's finding present an example showing that there can be a specific way of management of law and justice to yield apparence or effect that the validity of certain conventional norms seems to be guaranteed by judicial system which contains its proper context and logic for treating custom issue, even without the concept of customary law nor the way of both judicial and academic operation to arrange a set of positive customary rules inherently. 조선시대 민사재판에 관한 종래의 연구에서 관습은 막연히 법원(法源) 내지 재판관헌이 준거한 규준의 하나로 설명되어 왔다. 이에 대해 최근 발본적인 의문이제기되고 있다. 유럽법사의 맥락에서 형성된 관습법(custom, customary law) 개념에 의거한다면, 조선시대에는 관습을 법원으로 간주하는 인식은 물론이고 서양의관습법에 필적하는 규범의 실체도 없었다는 것이다. 필자는 기본적으로 이러한 주장에 동의하지만, 관습법 부재론의 대두를 통해 전통 민사재판에서 민간관행의 위치와 기능을 제대로 포섭·설명할 수 있는 새로운 개념과 방법이 요구된다고 생각한다. 필자는 전통적 민사재판에서도 민간관행과 관습적 규범이 문제화되고 중요한 판단요소의 하나로 기능할 수 있는 맥락과 법적 사유체계가 존재한다고 본다. 그 증거로서 이 논문은 1895년 5월부터 1908년 7월까지 한성재판소와 고등재판소· 평리원의 판결문 중 관습 관련 용어가 언급되거나 특정한 관습적 규범이 분쟁해결의 기준으로 참고된 것으로 보이는 사례들을 제시했다. 전통적 민사재판은, 관습법 개념도 없고 또 실정 관습법의 체계를 정립해나가지도 않았지만, 개별사안에서 문제화된 관습적 규범이 법의(法意) 또는 리(理)의 차원에서 음미되고 승인될수 있는 나름의 맥락과 표현방식을 갖추고 있었다. 그러한 방식의 재판 영위를 통해 관습적 규범의 타당성(validity)이 마치 국가에 의해 보장되고 있는 ‘듯한’ 현상이 나타날 수 있었다.