결과적 가중범에 대한 교사

류부곤 ( Bu Gon Ryu ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2009 서울대학교 法學 Vol.50 No.3

Wenn man das vorsatzlichen Grunddelikt angestiftet hat, Tater aber die schwere Folge verursacht hat, so daß er das erfolgsqualifizierten delikt gemacht hat, ob die Anstiftung zum erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt vollendet worden konnte oder nicht. Rechtsprechungen und zahlreiche Lehren uber diesen Problem bestatigen die Anstiftung zum erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt mit dem Grund, das Voraussehensmoglichkeit von der schwerer Folge, ohne der deutliche Beweis. Aber es gibt wenige Lehre, daß die Anstiftung zum erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt sagt ab. Sie behaupt mit dem Grund, daß das ungerecht ist, weil das die Anstiftung zur Fahrlassigkeit anerkenntet worden oder erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt das Sonderdelikt ist, so daß Anstifter erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt nicht machen konnte. Hier betone ich erst, das unsinn sei, Anstiftung zum erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt nur mit der Voraussehensmoglichkeit. Mit dem Grund der schwerer Strafe zum erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt urteile ich die Entstehung der Anstiftung. Zur Zeit werdet sowie Prinzip der Unmittelbarkeit als der Grund der schwerer Strafe zum erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt angezeigt. Das heißt, die typische Gefahr des Grunddeliktes zur schwerer Folge des erfolgsqualifizierten Deliktes unmittelbare verwirklichtet werden musst, und die Unmittelbarkeit hat zwei Bedingung, die unmittelbare Gestaltung der Gefahr und unmittelbare Verwirklichung der gebildet Gefahr sind. Zum Schluß von der Verursachungstheorie des Strafgrund der Teilnahme sei nicht Unrecht des erfolgsqualifizierten Deliktes beim Anstifter, weil er unmittelbare Bildung der Gefahr nicht machen konnte.

의료분쟁에 대한 형법적 대처에 있어서 새로운 논의 -의료행위에 대한 형법적 평가와 조정제도를 중심으로 -

류부곤 ( Bu Gon Ryu ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2015 法學硏究 Vol.23 No.1

소득의 증대와 의료기술의 비약적 발전은 의료영역을 순수한 치료의 영역에 국한하지 않고, 건강하고 행복한 생활을 영위하기 위한 포괄적인 행위영역으로 확장시켰다. 이 글은 이러한 상황인식에서 출발하여, 오늘날 의료영역에서 급증하고 있는 의료분쟁에 대한 해결방안의 모색에 있어 일정한 방향성을 제시하고자 한다. 구체적인 방법론의 측면에서 의료분쟁은 민사소송과 형사소송의 두 가지 방법이 동시에 개입될 수 있으며 이러한 두 가지의 방법이 제도적으로 혼재되는 경향을 보인다는 점을 고려한 전제에서 특히 형사적인 해결방안과 관련한 논점들을 다음과 같이 검토하였다. 우선 구성요건해당성의 측면에서 의료행위는 의사의 태도를 주관적으로 불법적이라고 판단하기 어렵다는 점, 상해의 고의는 적대적인 손상의 고의를 내용으로 한다는 점, 치료행위는 객관적 귀속의 측면에서 볼 때 일정한 위험을 창출하는 행위라고 볼 수 없다는 점에서 구성요건해당성을 부정해야 한다. 둘째, 과실의 측면에서 형사처벌의 대상이 되는 의료과실은 허용된 위험의 법리에 따라 판단되어야 하지만, 과실과 결과 간의 인과관계의 추정이나 입증책임의 전환은 허용되기 어렵다. 셋째, 회복적 사법이념을 도입하여 형사처벌 특례대상을 중상해의 결과가 발생한 경우까지 확대하고, 조정이 성립되면 조정합의사항의 이행을 조건으로 기소유예를 의무화하는 것을 긍정적으로 검토할 필요가 있다. Because of today’s earning growth and great gains in medical technology, the area of medical treatment is extended to general civic life for leading an healthy and happy life, not only confined to pure physical remedy. Against this backdrop, this thesis intends to suggest various solutions for medical dispute, that increases rapidly these days. In aspect of concrete methodology, civil and criminal actions can be intervened in medical dispute simultaneously. This thesis considers these points and mixed-loading legal system and examines arguing points related criminal solutions specially. At first, in the aspect of criminal factor, medical practice should not be considered as a criminal factor. The reasons are as follows : It may be hard to consider that the subjective attitude of doctor in medical practice is illegal. And mens rea for criminal injury must contain the intention of hostile harm to human body. Medical treatment should not be judged as a conduct, which makes some hazard. Secondly, in the aspect of negligence, medical mistake as the object of criminal punishment should be judged by the principle of ‘permitted-risk’and the assumption of causation between mistake and result or the burden of proof’s switchover should not be permitted in criminal court. Finally, depending on the principle of ‘Restorative Justice’, the exception of criminal punishment should be expanded to the case of grievous bodily harm, and in case of successful mediation, the offender’s indictment should be suspended with the condition, that he must carry out items of understanding for the mediation.

특집 2 : 아동학대범죄와 형사정책 ; 아동학대범죄의 개념과 처벌에 관한 법리적 검토

류부곤 ( Bu Gon Ryu ) 한국형사정책학회 2015 刑事政策 Vol.27 No.1

About the penal terms for the child abuse in korean ‘Child Welfare Act’ and ‘special Act on Punishment of the Child Abuse’, this thesis highlights the illegal characteristics of the child abuse and argues the coverage of penal terms and the necessity of punishment compared to the normal criminal factor. At first, about the punishment of emotional abuse, the conduct of emotional abuse in Child Welfare Act is for the protect of health, welfare and well-growth of child. So it should be treated with separate type of crime, because the emotional abuse and normal criminal abuse are different from the contents and dimension. This is also true for the physical abuse which is included the physical damage. But it is needed to improving the current regulations to more detailed forms to consistent with the principle of clarity. On the other hand, current criminal regulation for the neglect act does not have a legislative adequacy in terms of universality and abstractive omission. Child abuse commonly has a problem about distinction with the discipline conducted by parents or child care teacher. In this case, if we can recognize the damege of child victim definitely, then we should concede it as a child abuse crime in principle, but to restrain the excessive criminal intervention the introduction of regulation for the special terms of illegality exclusion like a Article 20(socially just acts) in korean Criminal Law can be discussed. In addition, to complement the problem caused by legislative-technical limitation of crime factors for child abuse, some institutional plan for the professional investigative procedures should be debated.

디지털증거와 영상녹화물에 대한 전문법칙 적용상의 문제점

류부곤 ( Bu Gon Ryu ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논총 Vol.39 No.4

Under the background that heresay rule of criminal procedure act is the core part of ‘due process principle’ for the discovery of ‘negative’ truth in criminal case, this article covers latest two issues about the application of heresay rule for digital evidence on the current korean criminal procedure law. First issue is about admissibility of evidence for digital document written by private individual. Typically digital document written by private individual must be printed on paper after the process of acquisition and preservation, and it may be submitted to the court in the form of writing. In this regard, the problem is that what is necessary requirements for the exception of heresay rule, if the digitaldocument contains statement of others about charged fact and must be treated as the subject to application of heresay rule. According to the judicial precedent, authentication in court for genuineness of the establishment of document by the statement of writer is required by article 313 of the criminal procedure act. In contrast, someone argues that, genuineness of the establishment of document can be authenticated by the proof with objective methods. Second of issues is the controversy to appropriation of video recording that contains scenes of statement of the accused or witness in the process of investigation, that is recorded by investigator. A precedent says that, video recording by investigator that contains scenes of statement of the accused or witness in the process of investigation cannot be treated as the evidence covered by heresay rule. But in the academic society, there is the confrontation of two views. One is that video recording recorded by investigator can be used as a evidence with the requirements for exception of heresay rule. The other view argues like that, the norms of the exception of heresay rule basically cannot be applied to video recording. In conclusion, this article criticizes the view that the meaning of ‘statement for genuineness of the establishment’ by criminal procedure act may covers all related declarations about genuineness of the establishment, also the other view that in the scope of ‘written document of statement’ as target of the exception of heresay rule by criminal procedure act video recording may be included. These views may curtail the defence right of the accused unreasonably. So these standpoints should not be admitted in the discussion about heresay rule without special reasonable background.

불능미수범에 있어서 위험성 요건의 의미

류부곤(Ryu, Bu-Gon) 한국형사법학회 2009 형사법연구 Vol.21 No.2

Im Strafrecht ist die normale Form des Verbrechens daß, die subjektiven und objektiven Tatbestand angefüllt werden. Doch das Versuchsdelikt hat der Mangel des objektiven Tatbestandes. Wenn mann anerkennen könnte, daß der Grundsatz der Entstehungsbedingung des Verbrechens die vollendete Ausfüllung des subjektiven und objektiven Tatbestandes wäre, gehördete das Versuchsdelikt zum besondere Form des Verbrechens, die die verkleinernd Entstehungsbedingung hat. Aber wirklich im besonderen Teil des kStGB, hat das Verbrechen zum typischen Rechtsgut z. B. zum Leben, Körper, Vermögen größtenteils die Regel für die Strafbarkeit des Versuchs. Zum Schluß, das Versuchsdelikt wird im mordernen Strafrecht 'wirklich' feste Verbrechensform anerkennt, die gleich mit der Vollendung ist. Aus diesem Grund jeder Gesetzgebung von den verschiedene Länder den Standpunkt, der das Versuch stafbar wir die vollendung ist. Dann können wir Fragen haben. Obwohl das Versuch den Mangel der Stehtsbedingung des Verbrechens hat, ist das warum strafbar? Was ist der Strafgrund des Versuchsdelikts? In der Spitze dieser Fragen ist die Diskussion über das untauglichen Versuch. Nach dem Artikel §27 von kStGB, obwohl die Tat die Vollendung nicht machen kann, wenn die die Gefährlichkeit hat, wird die Strafbarkeit zum Versuch erteilt. Dieser Artikel zeigt, das die Tat strafbar ist, obwohl die Vollendung natürlich nicht verursachen kann, wenn die 'bestimmte Bedingung' wie die Gefährlichkeit hat. Also regelt dieser die Untergrenze der Strafbarkeit des Versuchs und ist die 'bestimmte Bedingung' wenigste Bedingung für die Strafbarkeit des Versuchs. Die Norm, über das, ob die Tat strafbar oder straflos ist, ist der Strafgrund des Verbrechens. Deshalb ist die Auslegung über die Norm für strafbare untaugliche Versuch und straflosige untagliche Versuch die Arbeit, daß der Strafgrund des Versuchsdelikts bestätigt. Diese Norm ist, im kStGB, die Gefährlichkeit. Der Begriff der Gefährlichkeit ist hier, wie die Unmittelbarkeit über die Vollendung für taugliche Versuch, der einmalige Strafgrund des Versuchsdelikts. Für das tauglichen Versuch ist die unmittelbare Möglichkeit zur die Vollendung der Strafgrund und macht die die Tat dem Anfang der Ausführung. Für das untauglichen Versuch ist die Gefährlichkeit der Tat zur Vollendung der Strafgrund.

부작위범의 공동정범? : 공동의 협력적 의무상황에서의 부작위

류부곤(Ryu, Bu-Gon) 韓國刑事法學會 2010 형사법연구 Vol.22 No.3

F?r die Entstehung des Mitt?terschafts im kStGB wird die funktionale Arbeitsteilung zwischen der Beteiligten gefordert. Im Falle des Begehungs-Mitt?terschafts tut ein T?ter im allgemeinen die arbeitsteilige Handlung, die die erheblichen Tatbeitrag f?r die Ausf?hrung des Tatbestandes ist. So bedeutet die Regelung des Mitt?terschafts dass, der T?ter ohne T?terschaftsmerkmal bestraft als T?terschaft wird, wenn der das arbeitsteilige Zusammenwirken mit der Willens?bereinstimmung macht. Aber die mitwirkten Unterlassen kann im allgemeinen nicht diese Entstehungsbedingung f?r den Mitt?terschaft haben. ?ußerlich arbeiten diese Unterlassen miteinander, dennoch ist der Garantenpflicht f?r die Entstehung des Unterlassungsdelikts eigene pers?nlichen Merkmal und die Beurteil der Garantenpflichtsverletzung muss abgetrennt ausgef?hrt werden. Folglich k?nnte jeder T?ter die Verwirklichung des gesetzlichen Tatbestandes durch ein Unterlassen trotz der Zusammenhandlung machen. Deswegen k?nnte jeder T?ter vor der Frage, ob der der Mitt?terschaft ist oder nicht, als T?terschaft bestraft werden. Dieser Schluss ist noch immer richtig, was in der jeweiligen Situation zur die Verhinderung des Erfolges die zusammenwirkliche Handlung der Teilnehmer erforderlich ist. In diesem Fall kann man ?ber die Frage, ob jeder T?ter die individuelle Handlungsf?higkeit hat oder nicht, diskutieren und wenn der die individuelle Handlungsf?higkeit h?tte, k?nnte die soziale oder normale vielversprechende Begehungspflicht sich entwickeln. Das Ausbleiben dieser Begehungspflicht k?nnte als individueller T?terschaft des Unterlassungsdeliktes vor der Entstehung des Mitt?terschafts, wie die Situation des allgemeine zusammenarbeitetige Unterlassens, beurteilt werden.

고의의 본질에 관한 소고

류부곤(Ryu, Bu-Gon) 한국형사법학회 2012 형사법연구 Vol.24 No.3

Über das Wesen des Vorsatzes gibt es den Gegensatz zwischen der Wissenstheorie und Wollenstheorie in der Historie von der Lehre, aber der jetzige Stand der Diskussion im meisten Lehrbuch hat keinen Platz für die Wissenstheorie. Dafür gibt es die Begriffsdisputation zwischen der Einwilligungstheorie und Ergebungstheorie in der Wollenslehre. In die Disputation zwischen der Einwilling und Ergebung können wir doch nicht den materielle Gewinn der Unterscheidung erwerben, wenn wir das stimmungsvolle Element in der Diskussion wegschaffen. In meine Meinung wird die Einwilligung oder Ergebung als Wollenselement, daß das als Entstehungselement des Vorsatzes in der Wollenstheorie ergreift wird, von der Erkenntnis, Entscheidung und verbindene Handeln des Täter nachträglich schlussfolgert. Wenn ein Täter handelt mit der Erkenntnis der Möglichkeit vom tatbestandlichen Ergebnis und der Entscheidung darüber, das Ergebnis wirklich ausbrechen kann, können wir einschätzen wie das, der Täter hat einen Ergebungswille. Daher das Dasein der Ergebungswille als Wollenselement hat nicht die Funktion für die Entstehungsentcheidung des Vorsatzes. Schlüsslich denke ich, kann man mit der Wissenstheorie, in konkretem Sinn mit der Möglichkeitstheorie das Problem der Unterscheidung zwischen Vorsatz und Fahrlässigkeit lösen. Außerdem mit diesem Schluss, über das Wesen des Vorsatzes kann man gegen die Wichtigkeit der Wollenstheorie misstrauen. Mit der Einschätzung über den Ergebungswille in diesem Aufsatz und strafrechtliche normative Diskussion über den Vorsatz und die Fahrlässigkeit, begleitendlich mit der Überlegung über die effektvolle Gegenmaßregel gegen die Risikogesellschaft, wird die These, „der Vorsatz wird als Wissen und Wollen der zum gesetzlichen Tatbestand gehörenden objektiven Merkmale definiert‟, in Frage stellt.

부진정부작위범의 불능미수범 성립 가능성

류부곤(Ryu, Bu-gon) 한국형사법학회 2010 형사법연구 Vol.22 No.1

Von formaler Seite des Delikts sei der unechten Unterlassungsdelikt ein Erfolgsdelikt, der Verbindungsform der Handlung und des Erfolgs, deshalb verursacht die Unterlassung einen tatbestandmässigen Erfolg wie der Begehungsdelikt, obwohl der echten Unterlassungsdelikt ein Verhaltensdelikt sei. Wenn der unechten Unterlassungsdelikt die Form des Erfolgsdelikts hätte, so das Entstehungsproblem des Versuchs kommt hier notwendig in Frage. Im Falle, daß eine Unterlassung ohne denSchaden als Erfolg des Delikts über dem Rechtsgut passiert, würde der Versuch des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts dogmatisch entsteht. Aber gegen den Begehungsdelikt hat der Tat des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts keine formale Figur, sondern bespricht ‘nicht tun' als Tat, also die Frage der Bestimmung des unmittelbaren Ansetzens für die Entstehung des Versuchsdelikts wird sehr kompliziert Problem, wegen der strukturelle Eigentümlichkeit des Unterlassungsdelikts sollte die Tat mit dem gafährlichen Zustand beurteilen werden. Weiter, wenn es die Unterlassung gibt, es das gefährlichen Zustand zum Subjekt von Rechtsgut zu erst nicht gibt oder unmöglich ist, wie kann man das lösungen? Diese Frage ist sog. Entstehungsmöglichkeit des untauglichen Versuchs eines unechten Unterlassungsdelikts. Für den Begehungsdelikt ist es möglich, daß im untauglichen Versuchsfall unmittelbares Ansetzen für das Entstehen des Versuchsdelikts bestimmt und die Strafwürdigkeit (ohne das Verhältnis mit dem Erfolg) zum Grund von die Gefährlichkeit der Tat erteilt wird, aber für den unechten Unterlassungsdelikt im gleichfalls ist es sehr schwer, daß der Grund der Strafwürdigkeit zu finden. Schließlich wenn der wesentliche gefährlichen Zustand zum Rechtsgutsobjekt nicht passiert, von der Seite des Unterlassungsdelikts oder des untauglichen Versuchs sollte der untauglichen Versuch des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts nicht strafbar sein. Nichts als Fall des Irrtum über die Möglichkeit der Abwendung eines deliktstatbestandsmäßigen Erfolges ist die Entstehungsmöglichkeit des untauglichen Versuchs des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts zu finden.

횡령죄와 배임죄에 대한 최근 대법원 판결의 검토 : 민사상 계약관계에 위배되는 처분행위를 중심으로

류부곤(Ryu, Bu-Gon) 한국형사법학회 2022 형사법연구 Vol.34 No.1

최근 대법원은 명의신탁과 이중매매, 담보권설정 등의 계약에 따라 형성된 관계에서 그러한 계약의 내용에 위배되는 행위를 한 사례에 대해 횡령죄나 배임죄의 성립여부와 관련하여 과거와 다른 입장을 내어놓는 경향을 보이고 있다. 명의신탁의 경우종래 다수 유형의 명의신탁사례에서 수탁자의 처분행위는 횡령죄를 구성한다는 입장이었으나, 최근 각 유형별로 순차적으로 횡령죄의 성립을 부정하는 판결을 차례로 내어놓고 있다. 배임죄와 관련해서도, 부동산 이중매매의 경우에는 종래의 입장을 유지(배임죄 성립)하는 판결을 내렸지만, 부동산 이중저당, 동산 양도담보물의 처분에 대해서는 종래와 달리 배임죄의 성립을 부정하는 판결을 내렸다. 이 글에서는 횡령죄나배임죄라는 범죄성립의 근거가 되는 형사법적 가벌성을 어디서 찾아야 하는지, 최근의 대법원 판결의 변화가 이러한 형사법적 가벌성에 대한 적정한 평가와 반영에 근거하고 있는 것인지를 중점적으로 살펴보았다. 결론적으로, 명의신탁 사례에서 횡령죄의 성립을 일률적으로 부정하는 대법원의입장은 ‘형사의 행정종속화’를 야기할 우려가 있다. 명의신탁계약에 대한 부동산실명법의 규제효과를 곧바로 ‘형사적으로 소유권이 보호받지 못하는 법적 근거’로 치환하여 신뢰위탁관계를 악용하여 타인의 소유권을 침해한 행위자를 결과적으로 형법적가벌성의 영역에서 배제하는 것은 행정규제법의 취지에 형법적 가벌성 판단을 전적으로 일치시키는 것으로 재고의 대상이 되어야 한다. 그리고 배임죄의 본질을 ‘우월적 지위를 남용’하여 타인에게 재산상 손해를 야기하는 범죄로 해석하면서, 사회경제적 질서에 대한 신뢰에서 사무를 위임한 재산권자의 형법적 보호필요성이 도출된다면, 채권자의 담보물권을 침해한 행위에 대해 배임죄의 성립을 부정한 대법원의 입장 역시 재검토될 필요가 있다. Recently, the Supreme Court tends to take a different position from the past with respect to the establishment of the crime of embezzlement or breach of trust in the case of acts that violate the contents of the contract in the relationship formed by the title trust, double sale of real estate, and security right establishment. In the case of title trust, it was the position that the disposition of the trustee constituted the crime of embezzlement in many types of title trust cases. However, recently, the Supreme Court has issued judgments denying the establishment of the crime of embezzlement for each type in turn. Regarding the crime of breach of trust, in the case of double sales of real estate, a judgment was made to maintain the conventional position (constitution of breach of trust), but unlike the past, the judgment was denied in the case of double mortgage on real estate and disposition of movable collateral for bond. In this article, I focused on where to find criminal punishment, which is the basis for the establishment of crimes such as embezzlement or breach of trust, and whether the recent changes in Supreme Court judgments are based on appropriate evaluation and reflection of such criminal penalties. In conclusion, the Supreme Court s position, which uniformly denies the establishment of the crime of embezzlement in the case of title trust, may cause subordination of the criminal to the administration . It is not right to replace the regulatory effect of the ‘Real Name Act’ on title trust contracts with ‘legal basis for which ownership is not protected criminally’, and consequently not punish those who infringe on the ownership of others by abusing the relationship of trust. Because this is to make the judgment of criminal punishment entirely consistent with the purpose of the Administrative Regulation Act. And the essence of the crime of breach of trust should be interpreted as a crime that causes property damage to others by ‘abusing one’s superior position’, and the need for criminal protection of the property owner who has entrusted the affairs is derived from trust in the socio-economic order. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the position of the Supreme Court, which denied the establishment of the crime of breach of trust in the act of infringing the creditor s right to collateral.

형사전자소송의 현황과 미래

류부곤 ( Ryu Bu-gon ) 한국비교형사법학회 2017 비교형사법연구 Vol.19 No.1

모든 것이 전자화되어 있는 이 시대에 형사소송만은 아날로그 방식으로 진행된다. 그러나 2010년부터 민사소송의 영역에서 실제화된 소송의 전자화는 형사소송의 영역에도 일정한 영향을 주고 있다. 2010년부터 형사소송의 영역에서도 형사사법기관의 전자적 시스템을 통합하여 형사사법업무의 전자화를 촉진하기 위한 형사사법정보시스템이 구축되었으며, 같은 해에는 일정한 범죄유형의 약식사건에 대한 처리절차를 전자적으로 진행할 수 있는 전자약식절차가 시작되었다. 이 글에서는 `형사전자소송의 현황`이라는 표제 하에 현재 구축되어 운영되고 있는 형사사법정보시스템과 전자약식절차의 현재 모습에 대하여 살펴보고, `형사전자소송의 미래`라는 표제 하에 형사전자 소송의 구현이라는 목표로 나아가기 위해 이러한 제도들의 개선방향이 무엇인지에 대하여 논의한다. 이러한 논의를 통하여 형사전자소송의 미래에 대해 제언하고자 하는 내용은 다음과 같다. 우선 형사사법정보시스템(KICS)은 법원을 중심으로 한 형사사법서류 유통시스템으로 재구축하고 원칙적으로 형사전자소송을 구현하기 위한 개별 사건자료의 전자적 처리시스템으로 그 성격을 부여하는 것이 바람직할 것으로 생각한다. 그리고 현행 전자약식절차에 대해서는, 형사절차 전자화는 형사전자소송의 구현을 위한 준비단계라는 취지를 강조하면, 현재 시행하고 있는 전자약식절차를 좀 더 전자소송에 가깝게 접근할 수 있도록 하는 제도의 개선을 모색하는 것이 필요하다. 예를 들면 전자약식절차를 통해 약식명령을 받은 사람이 이에 불복하여 정식재판을 청구하고자 하는 경우에도 전자적 방식으로 청구하고 전자적 방법으로 피고인(변호인)이 소송자료 등을 제출하도록 하는 법적제도를 개선하는 것이다. 궁극적으로 형사전자소송의 확립과 정착을 위해서는 전자적 절차가 구두변론주의나 공판중심주의를 퇴보시킬 수 있다는 부작용에 대한 방향정리가 필요하며, 구체적으로, 증거에 대한 `합리적 의심없는 증명`과 공판중심주의의 연계성, 인간의 오감(五感)에 기반한 `실체`인식의 프레임 및 형사소송절차에서 `절대적` 실체진실에 대한 지향의 타당성 등의 법철학적 문제에 대한 진지한 성찰이 요구된다고 할 수 있다. In this era when everything is electronic, only criminal proceedings proceed analogue way. However, since 2010, the actualization of e-proceeding in the area of korean civil litigation has had a certain impact on the scope of criminal proceedings. Since 2010, the Korea Information System of Criminal Justice Services(KICS) has been established to facilitate the electronicization of criminal justice affairs by integrating the electronic systems of criminal justice organizations in the area of criminal cases. In the same year, An electronic summary proceedings have been initiated to electronically process procedures for a certain type of crime. In this article, under the heading `Status of Electronic Criminal Procedure`, I study on the present state of the criminal justice information system and the electronic criminal procedure that is currently being constructed and operated, and discuss the direction of improvement of these systems in order to advance the goal of criminal electronic litigation under the heading `Future of Electronic Criminal Procedure`. The proposal for the future of electronic criminal procedure through these discussions is as follows. First, the Korea Information System of Criminal Justice Services(KICS) should be restructured as a criminal justice document distribution system centering on the court and, in principle, it should be given the character of the electronic processing system of individual event data to implement the criminal electronic procedure. And for the current electronic procedure, emphasizing that electronicization of the criminal procedure is the preparation stage for the implementation of the criminal proceedings, it is necessary to improve the system that allows the electronic summary proceedings to be applied more closely to general electronic procedure. For example, if aperson who has been given an summary order through an electronic summary proceedings want to ask a formal trial, we should improve the system so that defendants(attorneys) can submit litigation material electronically. Ultimately, for the establishment and settlement of electronic criminal procedure, it is necessary to clarify the direction of the adverse effect that electronic procedures can reverse the principle of oral argument or trial centeredness. Specifically, serious reflection on the following philosophical problems is required : Requirements of Proof without reasonable doubt for criminal evidence, Frames of reality awareness based on human senses, Validity of pursuing absolute truth in criminal proceedings.