국민참여재판 활성화를 위한 실무적 제안

Abstract

The current public participation trial system is facing a crisis due to poor performance. If looking at detailed indicators, the situation is serious. This is because the number of applications for public participation trials themselves is being maintained, but the number of enforcement cases is decreasing due to an increase in courts’ exclusion decisions and defendants’ early withdrawals. This can be seen as proof that public participation trials are not easily accepted within the criminal justice process. Since public participation trials are alien to our criminal justice system, we are bound to face many difficulties until this system is fully established. Various methods have been proposed so far to overcome these and activate public participation trials. These include abolition of the defendant application principle, introduction of the mandatory public participation trial principle, restriction on prosecutorial appeals against unanimous acquittal verdicts, and granting of binding forces to jury verdicts. In this paper, the above suggestions, which have already been studied a lot, are not mentioned again. Rather, very microscopic and technical methods are proposed. Above all, constant communication and explanation are needed to relieve the defendant's vague anxiety about the participatory trial. Legally, it is possible to consider continuing the participatory trial even after the defendant withdraws the application. When an application for a participatory trial is filed, the court should not exclude it based on vague provisions. When making an inevitable decision to exclude, it should specify as detailed reasons as possible. In addition, it is considered necessary to proceed with the trial as quickly as possible to reduce the fatigue and burden of courts and jurors performing participatory trials. Therefore, the jury selection method should be unified in a way that allows quick jury selection. Most important of all, it is to efficiently conduct a written investigation by the prosecutor, which takes a very long time in a participatory trial. It is necessary to prepare active alternatives, such as issuing records to the jury in the form of electronic records. This can be said to be a kind of emergency prescription, not a fundamental solution. Nevertheless, the reason for making some suggestions in this paper is because I think an immediate response to recent public participation trials is required. If the current downturn continues, it is difficult to rule out the risk that the public participation trial will go to the process of factual abolition. I hope that the public participation trial will soon be activated above a certain level, and that it will be reborn as a more advanced system beyond normalization.