배심평결규칙의 법심리학적 제 문제(상): 만장일치규칙과 다수결규칙

이은로 ( Eun Ro Lee ),박광배 ( Kwang B. Park ) 한국형사정책학회 2006 刑事政策 Vol.18 No.2

Introduction of lay participation trial system could raise many psychological and legal issues regarding fact-finding functions of a jury. One of those important issues is the appropriate rule for the decision or verdict on the guilt of the defendant: unanimity rule versus majority rule. The verdict by a jury has several characteristics that distinguish it from other kinds of collective decision making, especially those in political contexts. Collective decisions are often based on self-interested behaviors of constituents, voters, politicians, and government officials under consitutional rules. On the other hand, the task of a jury as a decision making group is primarily based on the concerns for finding material fact regarding the guilt of defendant rather than serving for the interests of the participants. The decision by jury should not only be democratic but also be accurate and efficient. Therefore, the issues regarding unanimity or majority rule for the decisions by jury go beyond normative or ideological considerations and should be rooted in empirical bases. The purpose of the present article is to set the ground for research and scientific investigation searching for the appropriate rule for the decision by the lay jury that will convene for criminal trials in Korea. To that end, we introduce public choice theory for the optimal rule for group decisions and other theoretical models predicting the effects of different rules. And legal issues surrounding the unanimity and majority rules for jury decision making are delineated and summarized. In our next study, a review of empirical studies on the verdict rules in the areas of psychology and behavioral sciences will be continued.

국민참여재판 배심평의에서의 언어사용 : 한 그림자 배심 사례를 중심으로

서대승 법과사회이론학회 2019 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.61

본 연구는 2008년부터 한국에 도입된 국민참여재판의 배심원 평의과정에서 어떠한 언어사용이 이루어지는지를 분석하고자 했다. 배심평의는 배심원이 공판과정에서 보고 들은 증거들을 바탕으로 이 증거들의 일관성을 해석할 공동의 해석 모델을 만드는 과정이라고 할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 미국 배심원 평의에서의 언어사용에 대한 선행연구에서 일반인의 사실검증 기준으로 제시된 ‘이야기 모델(story model)’을 기초로, 법률용어에 익숙하지 않은 일반인들이 어떻게 재판에서 제기된 쟁점들을 검증해나가는지를 살펴보았다. 이를 위하여 본 연구에서는 실제 배심과 동일한 조건에서 국민참여재판에 참가한 그림자 배심원들(shadow jury)들이 평의실에서 어떻게 공동의 서사를 구성해나가는지를 분석하였다. 본 연구에서는 배심원 평의에서 공동의 서사가 만들어지는 과정을 평의의 시간적 순서에 따라서 분석하고자 했다. 첫째, 전체적으로 평의에서 어떻게 하나의 지배 서사(master narrative)가 도출되는지를 구조화했다. 모두발언에서 각자의 의견이 배심원 상호 간에 확인된 후에, 본격적인 토론과정에서는 쟁점이 된 사안에 대한 2가지의 상위 서사가 구성되는 모습을 보인다. 이 2가지 서사는 팽팽하게 대립하다가 판사의 참여 이후 하나의 지배 서사로 완성된다. 둘째, 모두발언에서 드러나는 배심원의 발언 스타일을 규칙지향적-관계지향적 말하기의 차원에서 분석하였다. 또한 모두발언의 구성에 있어서도 피고인에 유리한 의견을 제시하는 배심원보다 불리한 의견을 제시한 배심원들이 자신의 발언에 책임을 제한하는 말하기를 더 많이 사용하는 모습을 보였다. 셋째, 모두발언 이후 토론 과정에서 같은 의견을 가진 청자들의 언어적, 비언어적 반응이 공동의 서사구성에 중요한 역할을 하고 있음을 밝혔다. 넷째, 배심원들은 법률용어를 토대로 이야기 모델을 구성하는 것이 아니라, 전체적 이야기 모델의 틀에 부합하게 법을 해석하고 있음을 보였다. 본 연구는 개별 배심원의 사건이해 및 법률이해에 대한 분석만으로는 배심원 평의에서 공동의 서사 구성 과정을 이해할 수 없음을 보여준다. 또한 배심원의 이야기 모델에 기반한 법 해석이 법 전문가가 이상적으로 생각하는 법 해석과 다르다는 점에서, 판사의 평의 개입이 어떻게 이루어져야 할지에 대한 고민을 남긴다. This study examines on jurors’ language use and the narrative making process in jury deliberation of Korean jury trial, which has been introduced to Korea since 2008. The jury deliberation is a process that creates a common interpretation model to verify the consistency of evidence presented to jury during the trial. Based on the ‘story model,’ this study explores how ordinary people, who are unfamiliar with legal terms, discuss the legal issues raised in the jury trial. For this research, I analyzed language use of shadow jury, who participated in the jury trial under the same conditions as the actual jury. In this research, I tried to analyze the process of constructing a common narrative in the shadow jury deliberation, according to the time sequence. First, I discovered the process of how each juror’s individual narrative was changed to a meta-narrative. After each of jurors’ opinions were presented to other jurors in the opening statement, two main meta-narratives were constructed on the controversial issue during the discussion. These two meta-narratives were tensely contested among juries, but completed unanimously as one master narrative after judge‘s participation. Second, I analyzed the jurors’ storytelling style displayed in the opening statement from the perspective of rule-oriented or relationship-oriented speech style. In addition, in the composition of opening statement, jurors who had an unfavorable opinion to the defendant framed their main opinion with disclaimers, but juror who sympathized with the unfortunate life histories of the defendant did not. Third, during the discussion, the verbal and nonverbal responses of audiences who had the same opinion with a speaker played an important role in the formation of their common narrative. Fourth, the jury struggled to interpret legal terms according to the framework of the overall story model they constructed, rather than making a story model based on legal terms. This study shows that the analysis of individual juror's cognitive abilities of events and legal interpretation alone is not enough for the understanding of narrative making process in the jury deliberation. In addition, the jury's interpretation of the law based on a story model is different from the interpretation of the law ideally considered by law experts, which means more consideration is needed on how the judge's intervention in the jury deliberation should be made.

국민참여재판에서의 배심원의 양형 참여

김대성(Kim, Dae Seong) 인하대학교 법학연구소 2012 法學硏究 Vol.15 No.1

현재 우리나라의 국민참여재판제도는 시험적 운영기의 막바지에 접어들었으므로 이제 시험운영 후의 제도의 형태와 구성에 보다 큰 관심을 기울여야 할 때이다. 현행 국민참여재판제도에서 배심원들은 유무죄 심판과 양형에 모두 참여하지만, 배심원들의 유무죄 평결과 양형 의견은 기속력이 아닌 권고적 효력을 지닐 뿐이다. 유무죄 심판에 대한 재판참여 시민들의 참여는 형사사건의 국민참여재판제도의 세계적 공통점이기도 하며, 향후에 우리나라의 국민참여재판에서도 배심원들이 계속해서 유무죄 심판에 참여하는 것에 대해서는 별다른 논란이 있을 것 같지 않다. 그런데 언뜻 생각해도 양형 문제는 유무죄 심판 문제에 비해 전문성이 보다 더 요구되고 결정에 이르기까지의 과정이 보다 더 복잡하며 선택의 폭도 광범한데, 이러한 양형에 대한 배심원들의 참여가 과연 성공적으로 이루어질 수 있겠는가 하는 의문이 제기될 수 있고, 배심원들이 유무죄 심판뿐만 아니라 양형에까지 참여한다면 이는 부담과 비용의 증대로 귀결되는 문제도 있다. 따라서 배심원들이 양형에 참여하는 문제에 대해서는 보다 심도 있고 신중한 고찰이 필요하다. 이 글에서는 시험운영 후의 국민참여재판제도에서도 배심원들을 양형에 참여하게 하는 것이 적합한지, 만일 그렇다면 어떤 방식으로, 어느 범위까지 참여하도록 해야 하는지에 대해서 고찰한다. 결론적으로 말하면, 일반론적 차원에 배심원의 양형 참여는 사법의 민주적 정당성과 사법에 대한 국민의 신뢰의 제고라는 국민참여재판제도의 도입취지에 부합하는 것으로서 이념적 측면에서는 바람직하지만, 실제적 측면에서 양형업무의 전문성, 직업법관에 대한 배심원의 종속 혹은 의존 우려, 단일한 공판절차구조에서 비롯되는 문제점 등 때문에 부적합하다. 다만, 사형사건의 경우에는 배심원의 양형 참여에 따른 상당한 이익이 존재하고 배심원의 양형 참여를 부적합하게 하는 일반론적 문제들이 충분히 극복될 수 있으므로 배심원의 양형 참여가 적합하다. 그리하여 이 글에서는 사형사건에서의 배심원의 양형 참여의 구체적 방안까지 제안하였다. The current citizen"s participation system in judicial decision making was scheduled to operate experimentally for five years and then to decide it"s definitive form in Korea. Thus, the experimental operation project of the system is in its final stages presently. There is a number of matters that should be decided as to it"s definitive form. More than all, the most important thing is to decide the scope and substance of jurors" role in criminal proceedings because it corresponds to the essential matter in the citizen"s participation systems in judicial decision making. It is a prevalent condition that laymen participate in sentencing as well as the matter to decide guilt in mixed court system, while laymen do not participate or participate restrictively in sentencing in jury system. The jurors participate in sentencing as well as the matter to decide guilt in the current citizen"s participation system in judicial decision making of Korea. The study considers the matter whether the duty of jury should be expanded to sentencing or be limited to deciding guilt after passing of the experimental operation terms and the matters what the role of jury should be in sentencing and which effect should be granted to verdicts or opinions of sentencing jury if the duty of jury should be expanded to sentencing. It examines the matters in relation to the purposes of the citizen"s participation system, the principles of sentencing, the theories of punishment, the professionalism of the sentencing duty, the relationship between jurors and judge, the structure of criminal procedure and so on. To sum up, the following conclusions can be made : 1) in general, it is inappropriate for jury to participate in sentencing because of juries" lack of expertise and experience, juries being subordinate to judges and the problems derived from the unitary trial procedure, although it is desirable because it fits the purposes of the citizen"s participation system, that is to say the democratization of justice and the increase in public trust with judicial practices, and 2) in capital cases it is appropriate because there are substantial profits from juries" participation in sentencing and the obstacles making juries" participation in sentencing inappropriate can be overcome sufficiently. Then this study designs and suggests a specific plan for juries" participation in sentencing in capital cases.

재판의 진행·판단에서 법관의 정서에 관하여

김현석 법조협회 2019 法曹 Vol.68 No.1

This article first surveys theories that identify the role of a judge’s emotion during trial and judicial decision-making processes; through specific case studies, this study then aims to investigate the mechanism as to how certain emotions are evoked and processed by the judge. Emotion is constituted by the following three—cognition/ decision, action/impulse, sense/feeling—each of which will be discussed along with recent studies in psychology that show how all three are closely interrelated. This article especially focuses on the scientific discovery that emotion is biologically based—when a certain portion of the human brain that governs emotion gets damaged, the patient loses the capacity to make decisions, while he is still capable of cognition. “Judicial dispassion” was traditionally treated as a seminal virtue in Western jurisprudence, but a number of scholars, in recent years, recognized emotion as one that plays a significant function in judicial decision-making. Drawing on recent legal scholarship done on Law and Emotion, this article participates in this contemporary movement that acknowledges and explores the potentially powerful aspects of judicial emotion. Among 12 different factors that can influence the process of trial is emotion experienced by the judge, one that is constituted by four basic kinds—anger, fear, disgust, and empathy. Anger and disgust stem from a sense of contempt against injustices, which then prompt intuitive thinking that invariably tends towards criminal sentencing; fear and sympathy, on the other hand, raise solicitous concern over misjudgment, moving the judge to practice analytical thinking—one that often reaches a more compassionate verdict. It is made clear that these four kinds of emotion govern significantly the process of judging: not only of judging guilty or not guilty, but also sentencing, liability for compensation, and relevance of evidence. Yet, a judge does not always fully recognize emotion’s zone of influence in one’s decision-making. Endorsing the fact that judicial emotion is inevitable can become a way to envision more faithfully the role model of judge inscribed in our constitutional law, and attain consensus of the public in matters of law. In response to another movement in legal scholarship that argues for adopting algorithmic processes in trial, in-depth research in judicial selection, training, and appointment, as well as judicial decision-making processes, are altogether strongly encouraged. 본고는 재판의 진행과 판단에서 법관의 정서가 담당하는 기능과 역할, 그 영향력을 가늠할 수 있는 기초 이론들을 살펴보고, 구체적 사례를 통하여 법관의 기본적 정서가 작동되는 메커니즘을 규명하려 한다. 정서는 인지/평가, 행동/충동, 감각/느낌의 3가지로 구성되어 있는데, 상호관계에 관한 심리학적 연구결과를 소개한다. 정서를 관장하는 뇌부위에 손상이 생기면 인지적 기능에는 문제가 없더라도 의사결정에 결정적인 오류를 초래하는 과학적 연구결과에 주목한다. 서구 법제권에서 전통적으로 사법적 냉정(Judicial Dispassion)을 미덕으로 삼고 있었으나, 근래에는 법관의 정서가 사법적 의사결정에 긴요하고 중요한 역할을 한다는 인식이 형성되기 시작하였다. 본고는 이러한 학문적 움직임을 바탕으로 나타난 법정서학(Law and Emotion)의 최근 현황과 논의 주제를 살펴본다. 재판에 영향을 미치는 다수의 요소로서 12가지를 추출할 수 있는데, 그 중에 하나인 법관의 정서를 구성하는 노여움, 두려움, 역겨움, 슬픔이라는 4가지 기본 감정이 재판에 미치는 영향력을 분석한다. 노여움과 역겨움은 불공정성에 대한 반감으로 처벌에 대한 강한 확신을 부여하고 직관적 사고를 촉발하여 엄벌 지향적 성향을 높이는 반면, 두려움과 슬픔은 오판에 대한 염려에서 분석적 사고를 유발하고 관대한 결론을 지향하는 등의 유형적 구분이 가능하다. 이에 따라 양형과 배상책임의 과다를 판단하는 데는 물론이고 증거채부와 증명도, 유무죄와 판결결론에 큰 영향력을 미치는 점을 4개의 개별 사안을 통하여 확인한다. 법관은 그러한 정서의 역할을 제대로 자각하지 못하는 경향이 강하다. 그러나 재판과정에서 정서로부터 완전히 벗어날 수 없고 오히려 법관의 정서는 헌법이 예정한 법관상을 구현하고 일반인의 법감정을 재판에 반영할 수 있는 유용한 수단이 될 수 있다. 최근 재판에 알고리즘적 요소를 도입하여야 한다는 움직임이 나타나는 과정에서 법관의 선발과 연수, 법관의 사고와 판단에 대한 깊이 있는 연구가 요망된다.

국민의 형사재판 참여

김대성(Kim Dae-Seong) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2008 法學硏究 Vol.19 No.1

  The national assembly of the Republic of Korea legislated for the citizen"s participation system in criminal trial for the first time in 2007. The system was enforced from January 2008 and is mingled with the factors of jury system and the factors of mixed court system [Sch?ffengerichtsbarkeit]. And the system"s destiny will be decided after it"s experimental operation for five years. First, this paper examines the history of the arguments about the adoption of the citizen"s participation system in judicial decision making in Korea. During the late 1920"s, there was an argument about the adoption of the citizen"s participation system in judicial decision making for the first time in Korea. However, it did not come true mainly because Korea was put under Japanese"s colonial rule at the time. Indeed the argument in Korea was caused by the fact that the Japanese Diet passed the Jury Act in 1923. And then it was debated again during the late 1940"s in Korea, but it did not come true similarly. At that time, it was the post-colonial period, thus Korea was in condition that was difficult to adopt the citizen"s participation system in judicial decision making. Subsequently, the government, the justice authorities and civil society have taken interest in the matter since the late 1990"s in Korea. I understand that it stands on the series of democratization having been evolved since the late 1980"s in Korea. In the event, Korea adopted the citizen"s participation system in criminal trial for the first time by legislation in 2007. And then, after examining the contents of the current system, this paper proposes some improvements that can develop the system successfully in Korea.

국민참여재판에서의 강제추행죄 판단에 대한 분석 - 2019∼2023년 국민참여재판으로 진행된 판결을 중심으로 - /

김현경 법조협회 2024 法曹 Vol.73 No.4

국민참여재판에서의 성범죄 사건의 무죄율이 높은 현상이 주목받고 있다. 이에 대하여 먼저 배심원은 법관보다 무죄 판단 경향이 높고, 유죄를 판단하기 위한 기준을 보다 높은 단계에서 설정한다는 점이 제시된다. 다른 범죄에 비해 물적 증거가 적은 성범죄 사건에서는 당사자들의 진술 및 그와 관련된 정황들을 분석하여 피고인의 고의를 추단해 나가는 활동이 필요한데, 이러한 과정은 배심원들에게 낯설게 여겨지고 유죄로 판단하기 위한 증거가 부족하다고 판단될 수 있다. 두 번째로 성범죄 상황에 대한 몰이해에서 비롯된 강간통념이 작동한다는 점이 지적된다. 강간통념은 법 전문가들에게도 영향을 미칠 수 있으나, 구속력 있는 규범을 통해 판단을 검증하는 과정이 이루어지기 어려운 국민참여재판에서 그 편견의 교정은 더욱 쉽지 않다고 보인다. 이 글에서는 최근 5년간 국민참여재판으로 진행된 강제추행죄 사건을 분석하면서 위와 같은 내용을 검토하였다. 피고인과 피해자가 알던 사이였을 때에는, 피해자와 피고인과의 이전 관계, 피해자가 행위 당시 취한 행동 등을 근거로 추행을 인정하지 않는 방식으로 강간통념이 작동되었다고 추론할 수 있었다. 다음으로, 피고인과 피해자가 모르는 사이에서 기습추행이 나타날 때에는 간접사실을 종합하여 고의를 추단해 내는 일에 배심원들이 어려움을 겪는 점이 확인되었다. 해결 방안으로는 먼저 배심원 설명시 사실 인정 방법에 대한 교육이 필요하다고 보인다. 이해하기 쉬운 사례를 통해 간접사실을 종합하여 범의를 추단하는 과정을 훈련할 필요가 있다. 다음으로, 증거조사시 주신문을 통해 피해자가 적극적으로 자신의 이야기로 피해 사실을 구성할 수 있어야 한다. 이 과정에서 피해자가 경험한 범죄의 실제를 드러냄으로써 강간통념의 작동을 막을 수 있으리라고 본다. 국민참여재판에서 배심원들이 자신 안의 통념을 마주하고, 당사자의 구체적인 경험을 이해하면서 성폭력 범죄를 보다 섬세하게 판단할 수 있도록 도움이 제공되어야 할 것이다. The high acquittal rate of jury trial cases regarding sex crime has attracted attention. Some explains that juries have a higher tendency to provide a not guilty verdict than judge, and that juries set a more stringent standard in order to provide a guilty verdict. Since sex crime often lacks of physical evidence compared to other kind of crimes, there is a need to analyze the statements of the involved parties and the relevant circumstances in order to deduce the mind set of the defendant. However, such process could be unfamiliar to the juries and may lead the juries to decide that there have been insufficient evidence to provide a guilty verdict. Second, some argues that rape myths, which are caused by a lack of understanding on sex crime situation, interferes. While rape myths can also affect legal professionals, rape myths will be harder to be corrected in jury trial as there is less chance that decision making in jury trial would be controlled by binding legal norms. This article reviews the foregoing arguments by analyzing indecent assault cases that have been processed through jury trial during the past five years. In the event the defendant and the victim were known to each other before the event, it seems that rape myths interfered in a way that past relationship between the parties, actions taken by the victim during the event were used as grounds to deny the indecent assault. Next, regarding indicent assault by surprise caused between parties without prior relationship, it has been verified that juries experienced difficulties in deducing the defendant’s mind set through indirect facts. In order to resolve those issues, education on fact finding should be included during the jury instruction process. Simple examples should be used when training juries to deduce the mind set of the defendant through indirect facts. Next, during the examination of evidence, the examination in chief of the victim should help the victim to actively organize its victimization through its own storytelling. The storytelling of the victim would reveal the actual aspects of the crime and prevent rape myths to interfere with the case. Jury trial should be revised in a way that would guide the juries to face the myths inside them and to understand the concrete experience of the victim, so that the juries would be able to make more delicated decisons on sexual violence crimes.

미국에서의 배심원의 양형 참여

김대성(Kim, Dae-Seong) 한국형사법학회 2009 형사법연구 Vol.21 No.1

In Korea, the citizen's participation system in criminal trial has been enforced from January 2008. The system is mingled with the factors of jury system and the factors of mixed court system or Schöffengerichtsbarkeit, and the system's destiny will be decided after it's experimental operation for years. This paper aims to acquire some implications for the system's development in Korea by examining jury sentencing in the United States. Jury discretion to select sentences in felony cases was first adopted in the United States in 1796. Jury sentencing made its way westward from the Old Dominion as Virginia-trained lawyers and politicians moved to Kentucky and revised the criminal law of that state in 1798. Six states today still permit juries to fix sentences in felony cases. The Tennessee Legislature abolished mandatory capital punishment for first degree murder and inaugurated absolute capital sentencing discretion. The sentencing authority, whether judge or jury, was given unfettered discretion to choose between the penalty of death and life imprisonment. Jury sentencing in capital cases is practiced in all jurisdiction in the United States today. The main criticism of jury sentencing is disparity and unfairness of jury sentencing verdicts, compromise verdicts and high cost of jury sentencing. In this paper, Part Ⅱ surveys the history of jury sentencing to the present in the United States, Part Ⅲ examines the United States Supreme Court's decisions about jury sentencing, Part Ⅳ addresses the issues in the jury sentencing in the United States, and Part Ⅴ provides some implications for the system's development in Korea.

배심원들의 살인사건재판평결에 관한 경험적 실험연구 : 이야기모델의 적용을 중심으로

김은영,윤민우 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2013 성균관법학 Vol.25 No.4

The purpose of this study is to examine key propositions of the Story model to understand jurors' decision making process in a trial. The Story model posits that jury collect and combine facts and evidence information presented at trial to construct their own story to help their final decision making for the trial case. To complete this purpose, this study conducted a mock jury experiment with a sample of 302 college students drawn from two different provinces in Korea. The findings of the study reveled a supportive evidence for the Story model. The results of recognition memory experiment and confidence rating on jurors' guilty decision revealed that an order of evidence presented influences the structure of story that a juror construct during trial as the Story model proposed. Further, this study found that the evidence order also affects on jurors confidence level of the evidence presented by a prosecutor. The limitations, contributions, and policy implications are discussed in the discussion.

배심평결규칙의 법심리학적 제 문제(하) -만장일치규칙과 다수결규칙-

이은로 ( Eun Ro Lee ),박광배 ( Kwang B. Park ) 한국형사정책학회 2007 刑事政策 Vol.19 No.1

This article is to review empirical studies on the verdict rule in the areas of psychology and behavioral sciences. The empirical results of most research on deliberation time, the timing for the first voting, voting frequency, evidence/verdict-driven deliberation style, handling the dissenters, robustness and genuineness of deliberation, jurors` satisfaction with deliberation process, and confidence in verdicts show that the jury decision rule affects deliberation process. Decision rule has been consistently proven to affect the final verdict. The agenda for future research and relevant methodologies that are thought to be useful for the rational design of the trial by jury in Korea are suggested in conclusion.

참여적 의사결정기법의 제약요인 연구 : 울산 북구 음식물자원화시설 건립을 둘러싼 시민배심원제도 분석

은재호 ( Jae Ho Eun ) 한국정책학회 2009 韓國政策學會報 Vol.18 No.2