직권파기와 항소이유의 관계

송진경 ( Jin Kyung Song ) 한국비교형사법학회 2009 비교형사법연구 Vol.11 No.1

The accused told that he had not think providing services of a lawyer without a fee would violate election law and protested that he had made an error of illegality. If the doer has good reason for falling into error juris, the doer will be free from the liability of the accused. So error juris under the article 16 of criminal law is important ground to determine guilty or not guilty. The trial court should clearly explain what is the reason for rejecting the defendant`s protest. Not to judge of error juris violates the article 361-1 number 11 of criminal procedure act as the grounds for decision has not been adduced. Also it amounts the same article number 1 on a breach of the law. The appellate court had not definitely record judgement of the reason for appeal error of illegality. According to the article 369 of criminal procedure art, a transcript of the appellate court should include judgement about ground for appeal. The article 361-5 number 11 is stipulated that it is peremptory reason for appeal if the trial court has not adduce reason for judgement. In the end, the accused has appealed against the appellate court had not judgement of his defense error of illegality. However the Supreme Court has regarded that the appellate court had judged propriety of ground for appeal already even though the court has not judge separately propriety of ground for appeal in the case of reversing and rendering judgment for the lawsuit. But we can`t regard that ex officio decision includes every judgement about appellant`s grounds of appeal. Because the function of ex officio decision is just supplementation to appellant`s grounds of appeal. Above all he article 369 of criminal procedure art is stipulated that appellate judgment ought to include the judgement about reason for appeal.

일반논문 : 조선시대 ≪국전(國典)≫에 따른 형사재판의 모습과 오늘날에 주는 시사점 -"홍천 구시봉 등의 옥사"를 중심으로

송진경 ( Jin Kyung Song ) 동아대학교 석당학술원 2011 石堂論叢 Vol.0 No.50

1774년 강원도 홍천에 살던 구시봉은 자신에게 숯을 빌려간 박이동에게 빚진 숯가마니를 갚으라고 독촉하였다. 그러나 이동이가 불손하게 대꾸하여 서로 싸움이 되었고, 시봉이네 손님이었던 박선생가 함께 사건에 휘말리게 되었다. 당시 법률은 현행의 헌법이나 형법에서처럼 죄형법정주의를 명문으로 둔 것은 아니다. 하지만 과거의 형사재판이든 오늘날의 형사사법(刑事司法)이든 발생한 사안들에 대해 ``법 규정``을 적용함으로써 합리적이고 타당한 해결을 도모하려고 하였다는 점은 공통된다고 할 것이다. 구시봉의 사건에서는 정범이 누구인가에 대한 판단이 계속 엇갈리게 되어 실제로는 16년 동안이나 옥살이를 하고 방면되었다는 점에서 현실적인 한계를 보이고 있다. 그러나 정약용의 목민심서에서는 형사사건을 심리함에 있어서는 ``밝게 살피고`` 동시에 ``신중히 생각``하여야 한다고 서술하고 있다. 이는 오늘날 신속한 재판과 실체적 진실발견에 대응하는 것이라고 할 것이다. A case occurred at Kang-Won Do in Korea in 1774. The accused dunned his debtor for payment of borrowed charcoal sacks. The debtor talked insolently, they come to blows each other. Unfortunately, the creditor`s visitor was implicated in this fight. Although the criminal law at Chosun Dynasty did not stipulated the Principle of "nulla poena sine lege", criminal justice always purses reasonable and valid solutions to incurred matters by apply related laws. This case had a defect that the accused was released after he had been in prison for 16 years because the principal offender was not identified. However, in Mokminsimseo, Jeong Yak-Yong described that a judge should examine a criminal case in reasonable time and with care. The ideas corresponds to the modern principles of ``Justice in Reasonable Time`` and ``Finding of Substantial Truth``.

증거동의에 대한 비판적 검토

송진경(Song Jin-Kyung) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2010 東亞法學 Vol.- No.48

증거동의에 대한 형사소송법 제318조 제1항은 ‘전문증거(傳聞證據)금지의 원칙에 대한 예외로서 반대신문권을 포기하겠다는 피고인의 의사표시에 의하여 서류 또는 물건의 증거능력을 부여하려는 규정’으로 이해된다. 전문증거(傳聞證據)는 말 그대로 법정 밖에서 다른 사람이 무엇이라고 진술하는 것을 들었다는 것으로 원진술자의 발언을 제3자가 전하는 것에 불과하여 원진술자에 대한 교호신문이 불가능하다. 전문증거의 증거능력을 원칙적으로 부정하는 것도 바로 이러한 이유에서 이다. 그럼에도 입법자가 증거동의에 대한 규정을 둔 것은 ‘실체적 진실발견’에 지장을 초래하지 않는 한도에서 소송경제를 실현함에 있었다. 특히 1954년 제정 형사소송법 당시 한국 사회는 일제 식민지에서 벗어난 지 얼마 되지 않은 상황에서 6.25. 전쟁까지 겪었기에 인적?물적 기반이 초토화된 현실이었고, 이를 감안하여 형사소송법은 각종의 증거‘서류’를 활용하는 방향으로 형성되었다. 영미의 형사소송이 범죄에 사용된 흉기 등 증거물의 제출, 현장을 검증한 사진 및 수사경찰관 등 증인의 증언, 심리학자 등 전문감정인의 감정의견등이 법정에서 현출됨으로써 살아있는 증거재판주의 혹은 실질적 증거재판이 이루어졌다고 한다면 우리는 서류에 의한 형식적 증거재판이었다고 지칭할 수 있을 듯하다. 어떠한 행위가 범죄에 해당하여 국가형벌권이라는 가장 강력한 제재가 발동되기 위한 전제는 어디까지나 ‘증거’에 의한 범죄사실의 인정에 있다. 즉 형사소송법 제307조 ‘증거재판주의’는 엄격한 증명의 법리를 천명하여 피고인의 유죄를 인정함에 ‘합리적 의심’이 없을 정도로 증명할 것을 요구하고 있다. 그런데 ‘증거’로서 자격이 있는 자료가 되기 위해 통과해야 할 첫 번째 관문은‘증거능력’이다. 그렇다면 피고인의 유?무죄에 판단에 기초가 되는 ‘증거’의 자격에 대해서도 엄격히 판단하여야 할 것이고, ‘증거동의’의 존재 여부에 의심이 있는 경우에는 ‘증거동의’가 없었다고 봄이 타당하다. The Korean Criminal Procedure Law Article 318, Clause 1 stipulates ‘Agreement of Parties and Probative Value of Evidence’ as an exception to the Hearsay Rule, this permits documents or objects on which the public prosecutor and the defendant agree to be used as evidence. Hearsay is a statement based on what has been reported to a witness by others rather than what they themselves saw. Thus, cross-examination on hearsay is impossible. This is why hearsay to be used as criminal evidence is not permitted in principle. Nevertheless, the legislators established Article 318 of ‘Agreement of Parties and Probative Value of Evidence’ because they intended to realize economical criminal procedure. The Korean society in 1954 turned into a wilderness of cinders and ashes by colonial government of Japanese imperialism and Korean War. In view of these circumstances, the legislators formed the Korean Criminal Procedure Law to use various kinds of documents. The criminal procedures of Britain and the United States has realized substantial evidential justice by presenting proofs including murder weapon and pictures of the scene of the crime, investigation officer's or other eye witness's testimony, opinions of experts, for example, psychologists, physician, etc. However, The criminal procedure of Korea has been a perfunctory evidential justice based on documents including prosecutors' interrogation dossiers. The prerequisite condition to exercise a punishing authority is to find facts constituting an offense by evidences. Article 307 of ‘Principle of Evidential Justice’ stipulates that criminal facts shall be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Above all, to use a material as evidence, a material has to be eligible for admissibility of evidence. It is important to judge whether a material has qualification as evidence because it is possible to judge whether the defendant is guilty or not from evidence. Therefore, we have to interpret that the defendant does not agree to give admissibility for evidence if it is doubtful whether the defendant agree or not.

멍게, Halocynthia roretzi에서 분리된 해양버나바이러스의 특성과 물렁증과의 관련성

송진경 ( Jin Kyung Song ),윤현미 ( Hyun Mi Yun ),최병대 ( Byeong Dae Choi ),오명주 ( Myung Joo Oh ),정성주 ( Sung Ju Jung ) 한국어병학회 2009 한국어병학회지 Vol.22 No.3

진술조력인제도의 개선방안 : 범죄피해자인 지적 장애인에 대한 진술조력을 중심으로

송진경(Song, Jin-Kyung) 명지대학교 법학연구소 2021 명지법학 Vol.20 No.1

진술조력인제도는 진술의 신빙성을 높여 실체적 진실발견에 기여하고, 피해자의 제2차 피해를 방지하며, 범죄의 실체를 파악하여 범죄자를 처벌함으로써 사법정의 실현에 기여하는 제도이다. 하지만 진술조력인의 조력을 받을 권리는 성폭력이나 아동학대범죄의 피해아동이나 장애인뿐만 아니라, 나아가서 ‘의사소통이나 의사표현에 장애가 있는 사람’ 및 ‘장애에 준하는 상태로 인하여 의사소통이나 의사표현에 어려움이 있을 것으로 의심되는 사람’에게도 보장되어야 한다. 아울러 진술조력인 제도는 피의자나 피고인 등 가해자의 경우에도 지적장애인의 수사 및 재판절차에서 의사소통을 중개하거나 보조하도록 확대할 필요가 있다. 수사와 공판에 있어서 피해자의 ‘진술의 일관성’이라고 하는 측면이 증명력에 대한 판단의 척도가 된다는 점에서 중요하다. 하지만 지적장애인인 피해자가 장애인의 심리나 의사소통과 관련한 전문지식 및 경험을 가진 전문가의 도움 없이 홀로 범죄피해사실을 ‘구체적이고 일관되게’ 진술하기란 쉽지 않을 것이다. 실제로 자신의 피해사실을 명확히 진술하기 어려운 ‘지적장애를 가진 피해자’의 경우 수사나 재판 절차에서 피해사실에 대한 진술이 일관되지 않는다는 이유로 진술의 신빙성이 부정되어 무죄가 선고되는 경우도 발생하고 있다. 따라서 진술조력인 제도를 활용할 수 있음을 수사 초기부터 안내함과 아울러 필수적인 제도로 정립하는 것이 필요하다고 판단된다. The system of statement assistant has been introduced for improving the credibility of statement to grasp the truth of what the case is really about, preventing secondary damage, and realizing judicial justice to punish criminals according to the fact of the crime. However, the right to statement assistant shall be guaranteed to not only victims of child abuse or sexual violence and the officially disabled victims of sexual violence, but also actual disabilities with communication or express themselves or suspected disabilities with communication or express themselves. Moreover, the system of statement assistant needs to be expanded to wrongdoers such as suspects or criminal defendants with intellectual disability in investigation procedures and judicial processes. The victim’s coherent testimony is important, because it will become the standard of credibility in investigation procedures and judicial processes. However, it is not easy for the victim with intellectual disability to say concretely and consistently his or her damage without the help of expert in the psychology of disabilities or communication. In fact, some criminal defendants have been found not guilty because there were no consistency in the testimonies of the victims with intellectual disability, and therefore, the credibility of the testimonies were denied. As a result, the system of statement assistant needs to be presented in initial investigation and change to indispensable service.

생명권과 사형제도

송진경(Song, Jin-Kyung) 한국인권사회복지학회 2010 인권복지연구 Vol.- No.6

오늘날 형벌의 목적은 과거 응보형에서 교화․개선형으로 변화하였다. 하지만 한국 형법 제41조 제1호는 형벌의 일종으로서 사형을 규정하고 있고, 사형이 집행되면 행위자에 대한 교화․개선이라는 형벌의 목적은 결코 달성할 수 없다. 사 형은 범죄자를 사회로부터 영원히 격리시키는 형벌이다. 무엇보다도 생명권은 인간의 기본적인 권리이다. 생명이 없는 사람의 신체는 단지 시체에 불과하다. 물론 수십 명을 잔혹한 도구로 살해하는 사건이 발생하면 그런 자는 죽여야 마땅하다는 여론이 일어난다. 비록 법이 사회를 규율하고, 사회에서 탄생하는 것이기는 하지만, 형사재판은 결코 여론재판이 되어서는 아니 된다. 흉악한 범죄에 대한 관심은 시간이 지나면 자연히 누그러지고 사회는 다시 평온해진다. 이 사실이 의미하는 것은 살인, 강도, 강간 등 흉악범죄는 언제 어디서나 발생하고 있다는 점이다. 거시적 관점에서 보면 범죄라는 현상은 일종의 사회문제이다. 어떤 행위를 범죄로 다루고 그에 대해 어떠한 형벌을 부과할 것인가는 시대에 따라서 변화한다. 범죄에 대한 대응책으로서 법률제도는 끊임없이 발전하고 있다. 따라서 흉악한 범죄에 대한 대응책으로서 사형제도라는 공식은 성립할 수 없다고 할 것이다. In these days, the purpose of punishment has changed from retribution of a crime to edification and improvement on the prisoner. However, the Article 41, Number 1 in korean criminal law stipulates death penalty as a kind of punishment. It is impossible to edification and improvement as one of the purposes of punishment if the prisoner is executed. Capital punishment with being deprived of the criminal's life divides the criminal from society forever. First of all, the Right of life is fundamental human rights. The human body without life is just a corpse. The public opinion that the killer is for death arises when a man kills some dozens of people with deadly weapons. Although the law regulates society and appears from society, everyone knows the fact that a criminal court should not pass on the public opinion. Our concern about a foul crime will be naturally on the decrease, the society will recover peace. This fact suggests that felonious crimes including murder, robber and rape occurs anytime and anywhere. The phenomenon of crime is one of the social problems in broad perspective. The point that we treats any action as a crime, what kind of punishment for the crime will be changed by situation of the times. The legal system as a measure in coping with crimes develops steadily. Thus, the formula that a measure in coping with felonious crimes is death penalty is not able to come into being.

사망한 피고인에 대한 재판과 비상상고의 이유

송진경(Song, Jin-Kyung) 한국형사법학회 2008 刑事法硏究 Vol.20 No.4

Article 441 on reasons for extraordinary appeal in criminal procedure act states: “When it has been discovered after a judgment has become binding that the trial or judgment of the case was in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, the Prosecutor General may lodge an extraordinary appeal in the Supreme Court.” Extraordinary appeal is for the purpose of correcting violation of Acts in a final decision. The Supreme Court has held that defendant died before giving the original judgment is a fact. Mistake of fact is a reason for reopening of procedure. Right here, we have a problem what does the fact mean mistake of fact. Criminal trial has dealt with not in every act, but act to constituting a crime. In addition, article 420 stipulates on reasons for reopening of procedure for examples, “When documentary evidence or articles of evidence, on which the original judgment was based, have been proved by another finally binding judgment to have been forged or altered”, “When clear evidence has been newly discovered that in regard to a person pronounced guilty, a judgment of ‘not guilty’ or acquittal should be pronounced, or in the case of a person condemned, a judgment of remission of a penalty should be pronounced, or a lighter offense than that found by the original judgment should be given”, etc. Hence we need to interpret the fact in mistake of fact relates to crime. The fact that defendant died is irrelevant to facts constituting a crime. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has understood the fact that defendant died is included in a reason for reopening of procedure. All persons shall be subjects of rights and duties throughout their lives. If a defendant dies, he shall loss capacity as party. The prosecution against dead defendant does not satisfy a formal requirement to criminal trial. The criminal trial against dead defendant must be terminated in the form of dismissal of a prosecution. Then again, if a dead defendant is put on trial, this case is void by reason of its having been contrary to the provisions of Acts. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have concluded that the trial against dead defendant is a reason for extraordinary appeal.

형법 제23조 자구행위 등 위법성조각사유의 존재이유

송진경(Song, Jin-Kyung) 한국형사법학회 2010 刑事法硏究 Vol.22 No.2

The criminal law basically protects the legal interests including individual's life, body freedom and property, etc. We usually think that individual's life, body and freedom are more important than property. So the question of the criminal law supporting self-help is a trouble-solving broker's criminal law because self-help as the ex-post emergency action violates other people's life, body in order to protect one's property. In these days, a few countries have self-help as one of the justification in criminal law. However, the legislators stipulated the self-help of clause 23 in 1953 when they established the Korean Criminal Law. They intended to rule definitely on the legal principles that be received by the scholars' theories at that time. Self-help is an ex-post emergency action after the violation is completed while Self-defense is an ex-ante emergency action. The action of self-help is admitted if it is impossible to preserve a claim by legal procedure. The ex-ante emergency action including self-defense, necessity is admitted to protects every legal interest. Self-help as the ex-post emergency action is restrictively admitted to protect the recoverable right. It does not mean that admitting self-help is ignoring other's body, freedom. All of the self-dense, necessity and self-help are the admissions that a man escape the crisis by one's own power if the country is not able to help the person in an emergency. As a result, self-defense, necessity and self-help are the individual's emergency actions if the country could not help individual. These emergency actions do not mean disregard of legal process or the principle of constitutional state but individual's measure to escape crisis.

착오로 송금된 금전을 임의로 소비한 경우와 재산범죄

송진경(Song, Jin-Kyung) 한국형사법학회 2011 刑事法硏究 Vol.23 No.1

The supreme court held that the receiver who arbitrarily spent money remitted by mistake has to take the criminal liability of embezzlement. However, embezzlement has been committed by not whoever but a person who has the custody of another's property. The supreme court has widely admitted the bases of trustee not only 'the contract of trust' but also 'management of affairs', 'custom' and 'trust and good faith'. Embezzlement will not be able to be committed if the actor is not trustee. It is important whether the actor is trustee or not. Therefore, the supreme court from the viewpoint of the principle of "nulla poena sine lege" should judge very carefully whether the confidential relationship between the two parties exists or not. The lower courts has held that the actor in this case should take the criminal liability of embezzlements of lost articles. According to the article 360 of the criminal code, the objects of 'embezzlements of lost articles' are articles. We should consider the legal point whether the deposit is a sort of article or not. It seems that the meaning of money focuses on the value in exchange rather than a thing. We can easily draw money from an account. We should consider that the remitted deposit by mistake is regarded as lost article in a viewpoint of criminal law. Although the remitter can investigate the receiver's account number, name, address by checking the details of the bank account, it is difficult that the remitter restores the remitted money by mistake. In addition, the supreme court has held whenever the receiver acquires the claim to the deposit corresponding to the transferred money by giro in his bank, even if there is no transaction between the remitter and the receiver(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da69746 delivered on December 10, 2009). In the viewpoint that not only the ownerless things but also the things possessed without entrustment of the person who holds a right are regarded as lost articles, the money remitted by mistake are regarded as lost articles because the money was not consigned on the basis of confidential relationship.

공범의 진술의 증거능력과 증명력

송진경(Song, Jin-Kyung) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2014 東亞法學 Vol.- No.65

헌법은 제12조 제2항에서 피고인의 진술거부권을 보장하고 있으며, 해당 권리를 구체적으로 보장하기 위해 형사소송법은 제244조의3에서 수사기관에서의 진술거부권 고지, 제2666조의8 및 제283조의2에서 공판정에서의 피고인에 대한 진술거부권 고지절차를 규정하고 있다. 따라서 한국의 형사절차에서는 검사가 상피고인을 제3자 즉 증인의 지위에 세워서 반대신문을 한다거나, 피고인이 상피고인에 대해 반대신문을 한다는 것은 생각할 수 없다. 이러한 이유에서 판례도 공범이 공동‘피고인’의 지위에서 있고 피고인신문을 통해서 얻은 진술을 증인의 증언과 같이 취급하는 것을 부정하고 변론분리 후 증인의 지위에서 선서 후에 진술하였을 때 비로소 ‘반대신문권’이 실질적으로 보장됨을 이유로 증언 즉 일종의 진술‘증거’로 증거능력을 부여할 수 있다고 한다. 헌법적 형사소송의 관점에서 볼 때 공범인 공동피고인을 변론분리 후 증인적격을 긍정하고 증언을 하도록 하는 것은 반대신문권의 보장을 위한 궁여지책일 수는 있으나 일종의 진술강요라는 비판의 소지가 없지 않다. 최근인 2013년의 실증적 연구에 따르면 1995년부터 2012년까지 유죄에서 무죄로 1?2심 판결이 엇갈린 강력사건 540건을 조사한 결과 170건(31.5%)에서 피고인 또는 공범의 허위자백 때문에 판단이 달라졌다고 한다. 공범의 자백에 의존한 사실인정은 원죄(?罪)와 오판의 우려가 크다는 점은 우리 학계에서도 이미 지적된 바 있다. 허위자백으로 인한 오판을 방지하고 자백편중수사로 인한 인권침해를 방지하기 위한 수단으로서 자백보강법칙이 마련되었다. 공범은 범죄를 실행할 때에는 범죄의 실현라고 하는 목적달성을 위해 협력하는 관계에 있지만, 형사절차에 들어오게 되면 자신의 범죄 실행 부분을 축소하고 다른 공범에게 책임을 전가하거나 심지어는 범행과 무관한 제3자를 공범으로 지목할 우려도 없지 않다. 그럼에도 대법원 판례는 공판조서에 담긴 공범의 진술에 대해 형사소송법 제311조나 제315조 제3호를 적용함으로써 법관면전의 진술이라는 점을 이유로 바로 증거능력을 부여할 수 있다고 해석하고 있다. 생각건대 이는 소극적 실체적 진실주의의 보장을 위해 제반 증거조사 절차를 마련하고 있는 형사소송법의 취지에 반하는 것이라고 판단된다. 따라서 적어도 대법원이 공범의 진술에 대해서는 형사소송법 제311조나 제315조 제3호를 적용하는 것을 자제하거나 또는 해당 조문을 개정하여 명시적으로 공범의 진술에 대해서는 해당 조문의 적용이 배제되는 것으로 명시하는 것이 해결방안이 될 수 있다고 판단된다. Criminal defendant has the right of silence secured by article 12, clause 2 of the Korean Constitution and in order to materialize the Korean criminal procedure has article 244-3 of ‘announcement of right to refuse to make statements’, article 266-8 clause 6 and article 283-2 of ‘announcement of right to refuse to make statements’. Korean criminal procedure act has the Article 296-2 of ‘Examination of Defendant’. Therefore, it is not possible that public prosecutor interrogates codefendant as one of the witnesses or defendant has an opportunity of cross-examination of codefendant. For this reason, Supreme Court has not regarded the statements of codefendant as sworn statements of witnesses. Supreme Court has held that it is possible to use the statements of accomplice as evidences that satisfy qualifications for admissibility of evidence only if accomplice as witness make a sworn statement by separating the pleading because of securing the right to cross-examine accomplice In a view point of constitutional criminal procedure, using statements of accomplice as statements of witness by separating the pleading mentioned above may be a plan as the last resort to secure the defendant’s right of cross-examination, this method could infringe on the accomplice’s right of silence. According to a research paper published in 2013, reversing the judgement of the first trial, the appeal court ruled the defendant not guilty on 170 cases out of the 540 violent crime cases occurred from 1995 to 2012. The main reason is accomplice’s false statements. Korean criminal jurists have already pointed out fact-findings on the basis of confessions of accomplice have the risk of false charges. In order to prevent misjudgement caused by false confessions and human rights violations caused by investigation depended upon defendant’s confession, the Constitution and criminal procedure law stipulate some provisions on corroborating evidence. I think that accomplices cooperate with each other when they commit a crime together, however, they shift the responsibility to others. There is a possibility that a defendant even points out a third person unrelated to the crime. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that a statement of accomplice written in protocol of trial has admissibility of evidence on the basis of the statements conducted in the presence of judge by applying the article 311 or the article 315 no. 3. This interpretation could violate the ideology of finding of passive substantial truth and the purpose of the criminal procedure for the examination of evidence. It is better for the Supreme Court not to apply the article 311 or the article 315 no. 3 in statements of accomplice or to specify that the articles could not be applied to statements of accomplice by revising the articles.