미국연방지방법원 부판사제를 활용한 우리 법관임용시스템의 개선방안

함영주 한국민사소송법학회 2012 民事訴訟 : 韓國民事訴訟法學會誌 Vol.16 No.2

When the Korea law school system was introduced in 2008, the Supreme Court of Korea had a plan to new judge appointing systems. The plan is now expected to shake the foundation of the national judiciary system,in which top scorers of the examination have managed to earn the appointment right after they have completed their twoyear mandatory educational program at the Judicial Research and Training Institute. According to the reform plan submitted to parliament, those with more than three years of experience as prosecutor, lawyer, law professor or others will be able to be hired as a judge in 2013. The career qualification will be tightened to more than five years at such jobs from 2018 to 2019and more than seven years of experience could be hired judges from 2020to 2021. From 2022,only those with more than 10 years of field experiences will be hired as judge. Apart from prerequisites of these field experiences, I would rather try to investigate how to recruit new judges actually and what process is exactly needed. That's because longer years of field experience does not guarantee good judges. For this background, I am trying to investigate U.S. Federal magistrate judge's selection and evaluation system and try to apply the system into Korea judge appointing system. A magistrate judge's appointment is subject to a budget of Korea supreme court by the legislature's allowances. The vacancy is advertised that all the lawyers in the area of the court could have the opportunity to apply for the position. A news release is made to newspapers and broadcasting media in the district. After applications are received, magistrates selection panels determine the competence and experience qualifications which are the most important in selecting a magistrate judge. Standard form of questionnaires are distributed to each lawyer in the area, trying to assess applicant's qualifications. Prior to interviewing any applicants, background checks are made by the court and the results communicated to the court administrator who distributes the information to magistrate panels. Magistrates panels adopt are subject to standards of fairness, equal opportunity, and merit selection. The panel decides the method of voting in advance. The panel interview questions and each applicant should be asked questions so that the magistrate panel could compare the applicant's qualifications. Results of the appraisals are communicated by the magistrate panel through the court administrator to the individual judge. Results of the judicial appraisal remain absolutely confidential. This kind of magistrate judge selection system could also appropriate to get rid of the lawyer's privilege of his/her former judge post and to lower the barrier of justice for the common people.

미국 법원연계형 조정의 운영과 시사점 – 뉴욕동부연방지방법원 (E.D.N.Y.)과 뉴욕카운티 법원의 사례를 중심으로 –

함영주 한국민사소송법학회 2010 민사소송 Vol.14 No.2

Court-annexed mediation reform is being discussed by the Korea Supreme Court and some scholars in Korea. This idea originates from the analysis that Korea’s court-mediation[민사조정(民事調停) in Korean] is totally different kind of mediation in contrast with western country’s mediation. Many Korean scholars and judges says that Korea’s court mediation is actually modified kind of judgment[재정(裁定) in Korean]. Korea’s court judges are supervising the same civil case with a mediator and adjudicator successively. The same judge could be a mediator continuously after the judicial process changed into mediation. After the court mediation process finished, the same judge who supervised mediation as a mediator could adjudicate again the case with a judge. Many lawyers and legal professionals are suspicious about judge’s role in court-mediation and trial. These two roles and two processes are contradictory each other by its own characteristics. Korean judges are forced to finish his case into a mediation in a very short time by the judicial authorities. The rate of mediation is a very important requisites of judge’s performance assessment with a promotion standard. Due to this circumstances, judge’s mediation could be coercing to the parties and lawyers. According to this background, this paper has researched on court-annexed mediation in New York city. Eastern District of New York Federal court and New York county court were selected as a sample of American court-annexed mediation. Strict separation of mediator and judge’s roles are more precisely investigated and focused. The characteristics of confidentiality, impartiality, disqualification of mediators are also reviewed. This paper also introduced the important role of magistrate judges in the Eastern District of New York Federal court. This paper could be helpful to prepare for Korea’s general dispute resolution act and to make differentiated mediation process in contrast with Japan’s ADR promotion act.

영국의 법관제도에 관한 일고찰

김명식(Kim, Myeong-sik) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2009 法學論叢 Vol.16 No.1

영국(United Kingdom)은 세계 최초로 근대헌법의 여러 원칙을 확립시켰고 각국 헌법에 많은 영향을 미쳤다는 의미에서 입헌정치의 모국으로 칭해지고 있으며, 일찍부터 법의 지배(rule of law) 원칙을 확립하고 법치국가를 실질적으로 구현해 왔다는 점에서도 주목을 받아왔다. 사실 법치주의원리의 실질적 구현은 종국적으로 사법작용을 통해 완결될 수 있기 때문에 사법작용의 구체적 모습이야말로 법치국가 실현의 척도(barometer)라 해도 과언이 아닐 것인바, 영국의 사법제도와 그 작용을 구체적으로 검토함으로써 영국에서의 법치주의가 어떻게 실현되고 있는가를 짐작해 볼 수도 있을 것이다. 오늘날 복잡해진 현대사회의 생활관계는 다양한 형태의 법적 분쟁을 발생시키고 있는바, 이러한 법적 분쟁들은 다양한 유형의 사법작용을 통해 해결될 수 있으며, 바로 여기에서 실질적으로 구현되고 구체화된 법치주의원리의 모습을 발견할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 법관자격법정주의를 규정한 우리 헌법 제101조제3항을 구체화한 ｢법원조직법｣제4편은 법관의 종류를 대법원장, 대법관, 판사로만 규정함으로써, ‘판사’라는 지위의 법관이 제1심과 제2심의 재판은 물론이거니와 간이재판까지도 모두 담당하도록 하고 있다. 이러한 우리의 법관제도가 과연 경미사건이나 소액사건 등을 포함한 오늘날의 다양한 법적 분쟁을 신속하고 경제적이며 효율적으로 처리할 수 있을지 심히 의심스럽다 할 것이다. 본고는 이러한 문제의식을 토대로 경미한 법적 분쟁의 처리를 담당할 기존의 ‘판사’와는 다른 법적 지위를 갖는 새로운 유형의 법관제도의 도입필요성을 비교법적 차원에서 검토하기 위한 준비작업의 일환으로 치안판사제도를 중심으로 하여 영국의 법관제도를 검토한다. 영국의 법관제도는 사건의 복잡성이나 경중에 따라 다양한 직무범위를 갖는 여러 종류의 법관을 운영하고 있다는 점에서 그 특징을 발견할 수 있다. 이로써 법관의 업무부담을 줄이고 보다 효율적인 재판진행을 가능하게 하며 이를 통해 법관의 , 전문화를 도모할 수 있다는 장점을 발견할 수 있다. 그러나 무엇보다도 영국의 법관제도를 특징짓는 것은 국민이 직접 사법과정에 참여할 수 있도록 하는 치안판사제도를 운영하고 있다는 점일 것이다. 이러한 치안판사제도는 국민의 사법참여를 통하여 합리적이고 공정한 재판을 담보하도록 하였으며, 사법부에 대한 국민의 신뢰를 확보함으로써 사법부의 권위를 확립하는데 기여해 왔다고 평가할 수도 있겠다. 또한 사건의 특성이나 규모와 상관없이 모든 제1심 재판을 ‘판사’가 담당하도록 되어있는 매우 경직된 구조의 우리나라 법관제도에 대한 비판적 검토에 많은 시사점을 주고 있다. Nowadays, the various kind of legal disputes led by the radical social changes might require of the diversity in justice system and judge system. Especially, to efficiently settle down small claims, etc., we should seriously consider needs of introducing the magistrate system to Korean justice system, I think. This study mainly reviews the English magistrate system in order to form the basis of building the Korean magistrate system, because the English magistrate system could give some suggestions to improve the current Korean judge system. In the United Kingdom, the ‘magistrate’ refers to any independent judge who is capable of issuing warrants, reviewing arrests, etc. In other words, it means a judge or judicial officer who is capable of hearing and deciding a particular matter. Magistrates are recruited from members of the local community. No formal qualifications are required, but applicants are expected to demonstrate common sense, integrity, intelligence and the capacity to act fairly. They perform a valuable service on behalf of their communities and their role is pivotal to the administration, not only of local justice, but to our judicial system as a whole. Approximately 97% of criminal cases begin and end in the Magistrates' Courts. Specially trained magistrates can deal with young offenders; certain family cases, and also take responsibility for licensing, betting and gaming matters in their area. I consider it particularly important that the magistracy is seen to be representative of all sections of our society and that no one group of people should feel that they are underrepresented on the magistrates' bench.

각국의 법관 다양화에 관한 연구

김주경(Kim, Joo Kyung) 사법정책연구원 2017 사법정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.2017 No.-

헌법은 국민의 재판청구권을 보장하며, 재판청구권 실현을 위한 사법권은 법관으로 구성된 법원에 속한다. 법관은 구체적인 분쟁을 법과 양심에 따라 해결함으로써 국민으로부터 위임받은 사법권을 실질적으로 행사한다. 사법부의 존립근거는 국민들의 사법신뢰에 있고, 사법신뢰의 핵심은 법관의 공정하고 충실한 재판에 대한 믿음이다. 오늘날 분쟁은 양적으로 급증하고 있음은 물론, 질적으로도 복잡·전문화되고 있으므로, 법관들의 충실한 심리와 더불어 효율적이고 적절한 재판에 대한 중요성은 더욱 강조된다. 위와 같은 현실에서 법관들의 업무부담 경감을 통한 사실심의 충실화 및 전문적인 지식과 경험 등을 활용한 사건의 효율적이고 적절한 처리를 위하여 법관을 다양화할 필요가 있다. 우리나라 헌법 및 법률에 따른 법관에는 대법원장, 대법관 및 대법관이 아닌 법관, 즉 판사가 있다. 이 연구보고서는 위와 같은 필요성에 근거하여 법관 중 판사의 다양화를 주된 연구대상으로 하여, 우리나라 법체계나 제도에 영향을 미친 주요 국가들의 관련 제도를 비교법적으로 살펴본다. 각국의 법관 다양화는 해당 국가의 사법제도와 법관 일반에 대한 이해를 전제로 하는 것이므로, 주요 국가의 법원조직과 법관제도 일반 등을 먼저 개관하기로 한다. 법관의 충실한 심리를 위한 기존 법관들의 업무부담 경감과 관련하여, 미국 연방법원의 부판사·영국의 기록판사·프랑스의 임시직 일반사법관 및 일본의 비상근재판관 등을 중심으로 임명자격 및 절차·담당 업무·임기·근무형태·우리나라 유사제도와의 차이점 등에 대하여 살펴본다. 전문적인 지식과 경험 등을 활용한 특수한 분야의 효율적이고 적절한 사건처리와 관련하여, 미국의 행정법판사·독일의 기술판사·네덜란드의 부판사 등을 중심으로 임명자격 및 절차·일반 판사와의 차이점·우리나라 유사제도와의 차이점 등에 대하여 살펴본다. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees the right of the people to trial, and the administration of justice for realizing people’s right to trial belongs to the Courts composed of Judges. Judges actually exercise jurisdiction delegated by the people, resolving specific legal disputes in conformity with the Constitution, Act and their conscience. The ground for the existence and validity of the Courts is public trust in the judiciary, and the core of judicial trust is the belief in fair and faithful trial by the Judges. Today, legal disputes are not only increasing in quantity, but are also complicated and specialized in quality, so efficient and appropriate trials are emphasized together with faithful trials by the Judges. It is necessary to diversify the kinds of the Judges in order to deal with cases efficiently and properly through reduction of the professional Judges burden and utilization of specialized knowledge and experience. There are three kinds of Judges under the Constitution and Act of the Republic of Korea: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Justices and other Judges. According to the above necessity, this study examines the diversity of the last kind of the Judges in major countries that have influenced the judicial system in our country. First, this study examines the general structure and jurisdiction of the Courts in the major countries, as it is necessary to know the judicial system and general kinds of the Judges of the specific country to understand the diversity of the Judges in the relevant country. With respect to reduction of the Judges’ workload for the faithful trials, this study examines Magistrate Judges in the U.S., Recorders in the U.K., temporary general Judges in France and part-time Judges in Japan, mainly focusing on qualifications, appointment pro-cedures, duties, terms of office and the differences with similar systems in our country. With respect to the efficient and appropriate trials of special cases utilizing specialized knowledge and experience, this study examines Administrative Law Judges in the U.S., technically qualified Judges in Germany and deputy Judges in the Netherlands, mainly focusing on qualifications, procedures of appointment, the differences with the general Judges in the relevant country and similar systems in our country.

각국의 법관 다양화에 관한 연구

김주경 ( Kim Joo Kyung ) 사법정책연구원 2017 연구보고서 Vol.2017 No.6

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees the right of the people to trial, and the administration of justice for realizing people’s right to trial belongs to the Courts composed of Judges. Judges actually exercise jurisdiction delegated by the people, resolving specific legal disputes in conformity with the Constitution, Act and their conscience. The ground for the existence and validity of the Courts is public trust in the judiciary, and the core of judicial trust is the belief in fair and faithful trial by the Judges. Today, legal disputes are not only increasing in quantity, but are also complicated and specialized in quality, so efficient and appropriate trials are emphasized together with faithful trials by the Judges. It is necessary to diversify the kinds of the Judges in order to deal with cases efficiently and properly through reduction of the professional Judges' burden and utilization of specialized knowledge and experience. There are three kinds of Judges under the Constitution and Act of the Republic of Korea: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Justices and other Judges. According to the above necessity, this study examines the diversity of the last kind of the Judges in major countries that have influenced the judicial system in our country. First, this study examines the general structure and jurisdiction of the Courts in the major countries, as it is necessary to know the judicial system and general kinds of the Judges of the specific country to understand the diversity of the Judges in the relevant country. With respect to reduction of the Judges’ workload for the faithful trials, this study examines Magistrate Judges in the U.S., Recorders in the U.K., temporary general Judges in France and part-time Judges in Japan, mainly focusing on qualifications, appointment procedures, duties, terms of office and the differences with similar systems in our country. With respect to the efficient and appropriate trials of special cases utilizing specialized knowledge and experience, this study examines Administrative Law Judges in the U.S., technically qualified Judges in Germany and deputy Judges in the Netherlands, mainly focusing on qualifications, procedures of appointment, the differences with the general Judges in the relevant country and similar systems in our country.

미국 연방지방법원의 대표당사자소송운영의 경험을 통해 본 우리 집단소송제의 바람직한 운용 및 입법방안

함영주 한국민사소송법학회 2008 민사소송 Vol.12 No.1

Class action is a very special and exceptional procedure in the U.S.A. also. In addition to it, U.S. legal practice has a great difference from Korean legal practice, which mainly originates from German legal system. Korean legal system has a great difference with U.S system in the role of plaintiff lawyers and discretionary power of judge. Korea has no jury system. In America, some class actions can be consolidated for pre-trial purposes through the device of multidistrict litigation (MDL), whereas Korea extremely restrict basic multiparty litigation itself. Korea has no general class action law at present. Korea has only securities class action law with a more restricted prerequisites than America in certifying the case. For this restriction and private plaintiff lawyer's financial weakness, no case has been filed at now in the field of securities class action in Korea. In America, typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. From this point of view, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 increases defendants' ability to remove state cases to federal court. Korean pro-defendant lawyers insist on this as an indication of declining of U.S. class action. In contrast with U.S., Korea has not so big law market, not so much strong financial ability of lawyers or law firms to carry out class actions of his own ability. Plaintiff lawyer's financial conditions are too weak and they are too afraid to be branded “hostile lawyer to big company”, which is major source of profit to the lawyers. Nearly no lawyers endure risk to carry out such a risky proceedings like class actions on behalf of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries. They would rather receive traditional service fees, which can be charged regardless of win or lose of his case. In this context, Korean class action dissenter's arguments, U.S. class action system leads to "race to court" in Korea also, is out of the point. In addition to the lawyer's financial weakness, Korean judges, as a will be lawyer in the future, are too much careful to allow multiparty litigation also. They are too afraid to interpret the law text liberally. They think judge themselves have to get the highest level of self-restraints in every case. For this reason, Korean judges are hard to imagine on ‘certifying a lawsuit’(소송허가[So-song heo-ga] in Korean). In the U.S. Federal court, after a class action complaint filed, scheduling and discoveries are followed by judge, magistrate judge or special master. Korea has no system like this. In America, on the motion of certifying the class, defendants objected to whether the issues are appropriately handled, to whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class, and to their relationship with the law firm or firms handling the case. The prominent Judge Weinstein has the ability of the law firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs, and their resources for dealing with class actions. Judge weinstein has been excellent talents in understanding less well situated people and negotiating with interests concerned at the same time. He sought substantial justice instead of superficial justice in the real case. His judicial philosophy was firmly based on the principle of democracy in the judicial process. He put stressed on the 'of, by, and for the people' standard as a fundamental judicial principle. I have totally agree to judge weinstein's democratic judicial philosophy, which is also the most deficient elements in Korean judicial system. I want to study more about his democratic philosophy and find Korean style class action system for the people of Korea as a way of judicial reform in the case of complex and repetitive mass case.

정식재판청구제도 개선 방안에 관한 연구

김형진 ( Kim Hyungjin ),하민경 ( Ha Minkyung ) 사법정책연구원 2016 연구보고서 Vol.2016 No.8

Every citizen shall have the right to a speedy and fair trial and, most of all, a criminal defendant shall have the right to a public trial without delay in the absence of justifiable reasons to the contrary according to article 27(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Since the doctrine of prohibition of changing judgment disadvantageous to defendant has been applied to the formal trial procedure against a summary order, however, the defendant’s motion for a formal trial has increased, which is burdening judges with unnecessary judicial workloads, exacerbating the quality of judgment in general, and infringing upon citizen’s right to a fast and fair trial. The present research aims to introduce a system of motion for a formal trial that can realize the people’s constitutional rights without being abused for other deviational purposes. For this, Part II explores the current status of the system of motion for a formal trial based on the analysis of statistical results from a nation-wide survey of district court judges. Also, Part III addresses the problems of the current system, ranging from the motion for a summary order to the final judgment of a formal trial. And, Part IV studies related analogous system of foreign jurisdictions including US, UK, Germany, France, and Japan. In conclusion, in Part V, this research offers recommendations for enhancing the system based on the outcome of comparative legal analysis. To elaborate by steps, this research suggests efficient and speedy measures in respect of the summary procedure such as expanding the scope of cases that are subject to a summary order, explaining and confirming the defendant’s intention for a summary trial, and determining the exact place of notification. With regard to the phase of motion for a formal trial, it proposes to classify cases in accordance with the grounds for motion and offers practical examples of disposing recovery right for a formal trial. Also, it suggests to abolish the doctrine of changing judgment disadvantageous to defendant, and introduces the alternative policy such as building the sentencing guideline on formal trial procedures. For the formal trial step, it presents ways for a simplified trial and suggests the use of an electronic summary filing procedure. This research recommends allocating decisions based on the complexity of cases as a solution to managing the caseload given the limited judicial resources: disposing simple and petty cases by summary procedure, complex and important cases by thorough trial process. It is necessary to control the number of cases that can be allowed for a formal trial by introducing a simplified procedure. It is crucial to construe a solution to bring efficiency on disposing the system of motion for a formal trial for the sake of the defendant’s defense rights and the establishment of due process. It is expected hopefully that the discussion carried out in this research will draw public attention and have influence on the legislation process.

정식재판청구제도 개선 방안에 관한 연구

김형진(Kim, HyungJin),하민경(Ha, Minkyung) 사법정책연구원 2016 사법정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.2016 No.-

모든 국민은 헌법상 신속하고 공정한 재판을 받을 권리를 가지며 특히 형사피고인은 헌법 제27조 제3항이 정하는 바와 같이 상당한 이유가 없는 한 지체 없이 공개재판을 받을 권리를 가진다. 그런데, 약식명령에 대한 정식재판청구절차에서 불이익변경금지원칙이 도입된 이후 피고인의 정식재판청구가 증가하여 형사재판에서 정식재판청구사건이 차지하는 비중이 높아졌고, 이는 재판업무의 부담을 가중시켜 형사사건 전반에 대한 충실한 심리와 국민의 신속하고 공정한 재판을 받을 권리를 저해하는 문제를 초래해 왔다. 본 연구는 정식재판청구제도가 국민의 재판청구권을 온전히 구현하면서 다른 목적을 위해 남용되지 않도록 그 제도적 개선 방안을 마련하는데 그 목적이 있다. 우선 정식재판절차 관련 통계자료를 수집하여 분석하고 전국 지방법원 및 지원의 형사재판 담당 재판부를 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하여 정식재판청구제도의 현황을 파악하였으며(제2장), 약식명령 청구부터 정식재판 종국에 이르기까지 각 절차의 진행 단계별로 나타나는 문제점을 살펴보았다(제3장). 미국, 영국, 독일, 프랑스, 일본 등 외국의 경미사건 처리절차 및 관련 제도를 검토한 후(제4장), 위와 같은 비교법적 검토를 바탕으로 정식재판청구제도의 개선방안을 모색하였다(제5장). 정식재판청구사건의 유입통로인 약식명령 단계에서는 약식명령 대상 사건의 확대, 약식절차에 대한 설명 및 의사확인, 약식명령 고지를 위한 송달장소 확인 등 약식절차의 신속화·효율화 방안을 제시하였다. 정식재판청구 단계에서는 정식재판청구사유에 따라 사건을 구별하여 별도로 처리하는 방안과 정식재판청구권 회복청구사건의 처리에 관한 실무례를 제안하였다. 특히 불이익변경금지원칙을 적용하는 것과 관련하여 그 폐지의 필요성을 논증하고 이를 위한 정책적 대안으로 정식재판청구제도에 관한 안내, 양형부당을 이유로 하는 정식재판청구 시 서면심리 절차의 진행, 구속 시기 제한, 필요적 양형이유 기재, 정식재판절차에서의 양형원칙 수립등을 검토하였다. 정식재판 단계에서는 공판절차의 간이화 방안, 양형 편차 해소를 위한 방안, 벌금형의 효율화 방안을 살펴보았고, 장기적인 개선 방안으로 형사사건 처리절차의 이원화 방안, 전자약식절차의 활성화 방안 등을 제시하였다. 한정된 사법자원으로 많은 사건을 처리하기 위해서는 선택과 집중의 원리에 따라 단순·경미한 사건은 간이절차에 따라 신속하게 처리하고, 복잡·중대한 사건은 신중한 심리과정을 거쳐 공판중심주의 원칙에 따라 재판을 해야 한다. 이를 위해서는 정식재판에 유입되는 사건의 양을 간이한 절차에 의하여 적절하게 통제하는 것이 무엇보다 절실하다. 정식 재판청구사건의 효율적 처리방안은 피고인의 방어권보장과 적법절차의 확립을 위하여 시급히 해결해야 할 중차대한 과제이다. 이 문제에 대한 논의가 국민적 관심과 입법적 추진력을 얻게 되기를 기대한다. Every citizen shall have the right to a speedy and fair trial and, most of all, a criminal defendant shall have the right to a public trial without delay in the absence of justifiable reasons to the contrary according to article 27(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Since the doctrine of prohibition of changing judgment disadvantageous to defendant has been applied to the formal trial procedure against a summary order, however, the defendant’s motion for a formal trial has increased, which is burdening judges with unnecessary judicial workloads, exacerbating the quality of judgment in general, and infringing upon citizen’s right to a fast and fair trial. The present research aims to introduce a system of motion for a formal trial that can realize the people’s constitutional rights without being abused for other deviational purposes. For this, Part II explores the current status of the system of motion for a formal trial based on the analysis of statistical results from a nation-wide survey of district court judges. Also, Part III addresses the problems of the current system, ranging from the motion for a summary order to the final judgment of a formal trial. And, Part IV studies related analogous system of foreign jurisdictions including US, UK, Germany, France, and Japan. In conclusion, in Part V, this research offers recommendations for enhancing the system based on the outcome of comparative legal analysis. To elaborate by steps, this research suggests efficient and speedy measures in respect of the summary procedure such as expanding the scope of cases that are subject to a summary order, explaining and confirming the defendant’s intention for a summary trial, and determining the exact place of notification. With regard to the phase of motion for a formal trial, it proposes to classify cases in accordance with the grounds for motion and offers practical examples of disposing recovery right for a formal trial. Also, it suggests to abolish the doctrine of changing judgment disadvantageous to defendant, and introduces the alternative policy such as building the sentencing guideline on formal trial procedures. For the formal trial step, it presents ways for a simplified trial and suggests the use of an electronic summary filing procedure. This research recommends allocating decisions based on the complexity of cases as a solution to managing the caseload given the limited judicial resources: disposing simple and petty cases by summary procedure, complex and important cases by thorough trial process. It is necessary to control the number of cases that can be allowed for a formal trial by introducing a simplified procedure. It is crucial to construe a solution to bring efficiency on disposing the system of motion for a formal trial for the sake of the defendant’s defense rights and the establishment of due process. It is expected hopefully that the discussion carried out in this research will draw public attention and have influence on the legislation process.

미국헌법상 사법제도가 한국헌법에 미친 영향

김명식(Myeongsik Kim) 미국헌법학회 2013 美國憲法硏究 Vol.24 No.2

미국(美國)의 경죄처리절차(輕罪處理節次) 및 그 운영

오기두 ( Gi Du Oh ) 법조협회 2005 法曹 Vol.54 No.3

미국연방의 경죄처리절차는 다음과 같다. 우선 부판사에 의한 재판에 피고인이 동의했는지 여부를 묻지 않고 경미범죄는 부판사가 재판하며 이 때 배심재판은 배제된다. 이 경우 유죄 또는 무죄 인정을 하고 유죄인정시(특히 벌금형만 있는 경미범죄의 경우는 즉시) 양형절차를 진행하며, 무죄인정시 무죄판결을 선고하고 구속되어 있는 피고인을 즉시 석방한다. 경미범죄 이외의 경죄의 경우 피고인이 부판사에 의한 재판에 동의하면 부판사가 진행하는 절차에서 유죄나 무죄를 인정하며, 그 유무죄 인정은 배심재판이나 부판사에 의한 재판 모두에 의해 가능하다. 유죄인정시 양형절차를 진행하고, 무죄인정시 무죄판결을 선고하고 구속된 피고인은 석방한다. 부판사에 의해 진행된 절차에서 내려진 판결에 대해서는 지방법원 판사에게 불복해야 한다. 만약 피고인이 부판사에 의한 재판에 동의하지 않았으면 지방법원 판사에 의한 재판이 이루어지며 이 때에도 배심재판이나 지방법원 판사에 의한 재판이 모두 가능하다. 다만, 지방법원 판사에 의해 내려진 판결에 대한 항소는 연방항소법원에 하여야 한다. 이처럼 미연방은 우선 모든 경죄사건 피고인들을 일단 부판사에 의한 기소인부 절차에 회부하고, 경미범죄에 대해서는 피고인의 동의를 묻지 않고 부판사에 의한 공판 및 판결절차를 진행하고, 기타 경죄에 대해서는 피고인의 동의에 의해 부판사에 의한 공판을 진행하게 함으로써 지방법원 판사의 업무경감효과를 꾀하고 있다. 우리의 경우도 부판사에 유사한 제도를 둠으로써 지방법원 판사의 업무경감효과를 꾀할 수 있을 것이다. 형사판결 선고시 기본적으로 판결서를 (부)판사가 손수 상세히 작성하지 않고도 법정에서 구두로 판결을 선고하고 그 판결선고 내용을 녹취한 후 이를 출력하여 판사가 서명만 하게 하는 제도를 갖고 있다. 그리고 미국의 경죄처리절차는 경미범죄 이외의 경죄처리절차가 통상의 중죄 사건 처리절차와 유사하다. 그러나 경미범죄사건에서는 배심재판이 배제될 뿐만 아니라 예비심문절차도 배제된다. 우리 나라의 제도와 비교할 때 원칙적으로 불출석재판 및 서면심리에 의해 경미범죄를 처리하는 우리의 즉결심판절차나 약식명령절차 및 증거법에 대한 특례까지 규정하고 있는 간이공판절차가 다량의 사건을 신속히 처리하는데 훨씬 효율적이라고 할 것이다. 그러므로 미국의 경죄처리절차가 우리에게 시사하는 바는 경미범죄 및 기타 경죄사건을 부판사가 처리하도록 하여 지방법원 판사의 업무를 경감함으로써, 지방법원판사가 보다 중요한 사건에 노력을 집중할 수 있도록 한 점, 몇몇 작은 특례를 규정한 이외에는 기본적으로 통상의 사건과 동일한 원칙을 적용하여 경죄사건을 처리하려는 태도를 견지하여 충실한 심리를 하게 하고 있는 점 등이라고 하겠다.