기소절차상 국민참여방안으로 검찰시민위원회 제도에 대한 검토 = A Review about the Civil Committee on Prosecution in Korea to promote Civil Participation on Prosecutorial Procedure

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Efforts have been made to present specific reform measures that enable reasonable and efficient operation of the current Civil Committee on Prosecution as the Korean form of a grand jury. As a result, the following conclusions were reached. First, the current Civil Committee on Prosecution was established not on the basis of an independent law but by the prosecution`s internal guidelines, and its operation has an inborn limitation to become nominal. Toward this end, the operation guideline, which was meant to be an established rule, should be enacted in order to ensure the effectiveness of the Committee. Second, the functions of the Committee should be rationalized. The current Committee only reviews cases that are requested by prosecutors and, therefore, it has met with a great deal of criticism. In order to increase the effectiveness of this institution, the Committee should review cases that accusers have applied for or cases that the Committee has determined under its own authority to be relevant, in addition to cases that have been requested by prosecutors. Third, although a measure to affiliate the Committee with a grand jury system like the one used in the U.S. has been put forth, and the Prosecution Review Commission may review such a measure, it is desirable to attach the Committee to the Public Prosecutor`s Office in consideration of the need for swift and efficient investigations. However, to ensure the independence of the Committee, budget-related matters should be controlled by the Public Prosecutor`s Office and other matters should be independently determined by the Committee. Fourth, the legal binding force of decisions by the Committee should not be recognized and it will be sufficient to recognize its de facto binding force. Today, many criminal cases require a high level of legal knowledge for their resolution and there are many instances in which the cases cannot or should not be solved using the common sense or feelings of ordinary citizens who are not in the legal profession. Accordingly, it is enough to recognize only the de facto binding force where the Committee`s decisions are respected by the prosecutors.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 도중진, "형사재판에의 시민참여방안" 한국형사정책연구원 15 (15): 239-276, 2004

2 손동권, "형사소송법 개정신판" 세창출판사 2010

3 배종대, "형사소송법" 홍문사 2006

4 이은모, "형사소송법" 박영사 2012

5 이재상, "형사소송법" 박영사 2012

6 윤지영, "재판 전 단계에서의 국민참여방안에 관한 연구" 한국형사정책연구원 2011

7 김준성, "올바른 검찰권행사를 위한 검찰시민위원회제도의 활성화 방안" 한국인권사회복지학회 (10) : 2011

8 신동운, "신형사소송법 제3판" 법문사 2011

9 정한중, "시민참여형 공소권통제제도의 모색" 법학연구소 12 (12): 218-246, 2009

10 이덕인, "시민 참여에 의한 검찰 공소권한의 통제" 동북아법연구소 6 (6): 125-146, 2013

11 김진환, "사법개혁의 방향" 한국법학원 2010

12 오경식, "미국의 기소대배심운영과 한국의 도입방안" 대검찰청 (28) : 1-30, 2010

13 김재봉, "기소절차와 시민참여 방안" 법학연구소 28 (28): 283-307, 2011

14 대검찰청, "검찰연감" 2012

15 김태명, "검찰시민위원회 및 기고심사회 제도에 대한 비판적 고찰: 미국의 대배심제도와 일본의 검찰심사회제도를 참고하여" 한국형사정책연구원 21 (21): 149-192, 2010

16 문준영, "검찰권 행사에 대한 시민적 통제와 참여― 검사의 기소재량 통제를 위한 한국과 일본의 최근의 개혁 ―" 민주주의법학연구회 (29) : 173-208, 2005

17 이성기, "검사의 부당한 공소제기를 방지하기 위한 미국 기소대배심제(Grand Jury)의 수정적 도입에 관한 연구" 비교법학연구소 38 : 463-494, 2013

18 장승일, "검사의 기소재량권 통제와 시민참여제도에 대한 검토" 비교법학연구소 39 : 345-374, 2013

19 박현정, "검사의 공소권통제제도에 관한 연구 : 기소절차상 시민참여제도와 관련하여" 조선대학교 대학원 2010

20 出口雄一, "検察審査会法制定の経緯--GHQにおける議論を中心に" ぎょうせい 62 (62): 2009

21 Sara Sun Beale, "Grand Jury Law and Practice" 2004

22 대법원 국민사법참여위원회, "2013 국민참여재판 제도의 최종 형태 결정을 위한 공청회 자료집"

23 법무연수원, "2012 범죄백서" 2013

24 법무연수원, "2008 범죄백서" 2008