刑事速裁案件集中审理的正当性 及其保障 = The Legitimacy and Guarantee of Centralized Trial in the Speedy Criminal Cases

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The trial work of criminal quick-adjudication procedure carried out well and achieved remarkable results; at the same time, it also caused problems. Since it is an experimental reform, a series of exploratory practices have appeared in practice, among which centralized adjudication is one of them. "centralized hearing" means that the same group of public prosecutors and judges deal with many different cases in turn in the same time period in order to avoid the cumbersome procedure caused by the respective court sessions, in order to improve the efficiency of adjudication. The facts are clear, the evidence is sufficient, the suspect or defendant has no objection to the fact of the crime, and the penalty is lighter, so the case can be dealt with. The same cases are heard in a centralized manner. The centralized adjudication procedure can fill the loophole of our country's summary procedure effectively. On the one hand, the examination and approval of criminal summary procedure is too cumbersome. Meeting discussion system, leading examination and approval system seriously reduced the work efficiency of summary procedure cases. On the other hand, the legal documents of summary procedure are too complicated, which results in too much time for the clerical work and increases the burden on the case handlers. Furthermore, the suitable criminal procedure can effectively solve the difficult situation of speeding up the summary procedure, and make the judicial resources shift from the equal allocation to the differentiated allocation. However, the lower rate of application of the procedure and The voluntary nature of the defendant's confession is difficult to obtain effective protection and so on. There are also structural defects in the start-up and transformation mechanism. The root cause is the fuzziness of the basis of its construction-justification. Therefore, this paper first investigates and analyzes the first-line experience of the centralized adjudication procedure in each pilot area, and obtains the practical basis of its legitimacy. Secondly, with the popularization of summary procedure and rapid adjudication procedure and the expansion of the scope of application of the legal provisions, the necessity of centralized adjudication procedure is obtained. Finally, combining with the diversion mechanism from the source of the case on the basis of practice, the crime of applying the premise to the procedure of quick adjudication is committed. The mechanism of voluntary admission of guilt and punishment and the procedure to ensure the rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants are from three angles: the initiation and transformation mechanism of the rights and interests of suspects and defendants; This paper puts forward three supporting measures to guarantee the feasibility of centralized adjudication of the speedy adjudication procedure, with the intention of providing a theoretical basis for realizing the legitimacy of the application of the criminal fast-adjudication procedure, and then improving the applicable rate of the criminal fast-adjudication procedure.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

刑事速裁程序试点工作推行效果良好, 成绩显著；同时, 也暴漏了问题。因是一 项试验性改革, 实践中出现了有助于促进其推行的系列探索性做法, 对刑事速裁案 件实施集中审理就是其中之一。“集中审理”是指在同一时间段内由同一拨公诉人、 法官就多个不同的案件依次进行处理, 避免分别开庭引发的程序繁琐, 旨在提高裁 判效率。适用速裁程序审理的案件, 事实清楚、证据充分、犯罪嫌疑人或被告人对 犯罪事实无异议, 并且判处刑罚较轻, 故可以对案由相同的案件采用集中审理的方 式。刑事速裁程序集中审理能有效的填补中国刑事诉讼简易程序的漏洞。一方面, 刑事诉讼简易程序的审批环节过于繁琐。会议讨论制、领导审批制严重降低了简易 程序案件的工作效率。另一方面, 简易程序的法律文书也过于复杂, 导致办案人员 在文字工作上消耗了太多时间, 增加了办案人员的负担。再者, 刑事速裁程序的适 行, 能够有效解决简易程序提速难的困境, 使得司法资源由平均分配转向区别配 置。但是, 程序适用率较低以及被告人认罪的自愿性难以得到有效保障等问题同样 不容忽视, 这同样也暴漏出速裁程序启动与转化机制存在结构性缺陷等问题。究其 根本原因系其建构基点——正当化依据的模糊不清。由此本文首先考察分析各试点 地区刑事速裁程序集中审理的一线经验, 得出其正当性的实践依据。其次概括性分 析中国目前随着刑事诉讼简易程序和刑事速裁程序的推广使用和法律规定适用范围 之扩大, 得出速裁程序集中审理之必要性。最终, 结合实践基础从案件源头之分流 机制, 速裁程序适用前提之犯罪嫌疑人自愿认罪认罚机制和确保犯罪嫌疑人、被告 人权益的程序启动和转化机制三大角度；提出保障速裁程序集中审理的可行性的三 大配套措施, 意图为实现刑事速裁程序适用的正当性提供理论依据, 进而提高其适 用率。

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 왕지엔청, "효율을 가치로 하는 형사속제 과정 논강" (1) : 2016

2 왕하이엔, "형사 속재절차의 두가지 모델(우리나라 속재 절차의 구축에 관하여 논하다)" 5 : 2016

3 장칭, "형사 속재과정 중 검찰원과 법원의 협조 기제(机制) 시범 효과의 실증연구-광저우시 위에슈구 인민법원 형사속재 실행" (1) : 2016

4 "중국법률연감"

5 구구워치앙, "중국 간이절차 실천상의 문제와 그 대책" (2) : 2017

6 홍하오, "우리나라 형사 속재절차 이성으로 가는 참신한 과제" (2) : 2017

7 판총이, "우리나라 형사 속재과정의 운용" (11) : 2015

8 리우광산, "우나나라 형사 속재절차의 반성과 재구성" (2) : 2016

9 슈통밍, "양형건의 협의는 가능하지만 흥정은 할 수 없다" (5) : 2015

10 판슝이, "보급 가치 있는 하이덴의 형사속재 시범 모델" (5) : 2016

11 천루이화, "범죄를 자백하고 형벌에 의의가 없는 사건의 관용처리에 관한 몇 가지 쟁점" (1) : 2017

12 저우총, "광저우의 형사속재 1년, 음주운전 사건의 60%를 처리하다"

13 뤼비아오, "간이절차 사건 집중심리 연구" 5 : 2014

14 씨에산, "간이사건 집중심리 모델 연구" 서남정법대학 2014