전 세계적인 민사배심재판의 쇠퇴, 민사증거법상 전문증거배제법칙의 변화와 우리에의 시사점

이주연(Lee, Ju Yoen),홍대운(Hong, Dae Un) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학연구 Vol.55 No.2

Jury trial system is not universally adopted across the world. It is generally confined to common law countries, while a handful of civil law countries that were influenced by the UK and US have introduced jury trial system in criminal procedure. Civil jury, as opposed to criminal jury, is almost non-existent in civil law countries. As shown by the experiences of many common law countries, jury trial system cannot be separated from a sophisticated evidence law including hearsay rule. Such rules were designed to filter illegitimate evidences before they are presented to jurors who can be improperly influenced by such evidences, unlike professional judges. As civil jury trial greatly diminished, civil evidence rules–represented by hearsay rule - have either been abolished or undergone significant changes in most common law countries. Korea, traditionally classified as a civil law country, adopted criminal jury trial system in 2008 and the Korean Supreme Court is presently considering introducing civil jury trial. Korea is an ‘emerging star’ in the field of jury trial across the world. Introducing jury trial, however, goes beyond just replacing a part of judges’ role with that of juries. It requires introducing many systems that are unique in common law countries such as evidence law, lengthy discovery, plea bargain, and so on. In other words, jury trial system can bring a significant change in the existing legal system of Korea. But Korea still has a relatively disorganized evidence law. For example, Korean civil procedure law does not have any provisions on hearsay rule. Without a significant level of changes in the existing legal system, transplanting US-style civil jury trial will cause a serious confusion. As such, it is indispensible to carefully scrutinize civil jury trial and civil evidence rules across the world before introducing civil jury trial system, in order to find how to address its possible complications. 근래 민사배심재판이 여러 법원에서 시범적으로 실시되는 등 민사배심재판을 도입하려는 법원의 계획이 점차 가시화되고 있다. 그렇지만 배심재판은 전 세계적으로 보아도 결코 일반적인 제도라고는 할 수 없으며 특히 민사배심재판은 사실상 보통법계 국가들에 한정된 제도일 뿐 아니라, 미국을 제외하면 영국 등 오래전부터 배심재판을 실시해 온 여러 보통법계 국가들에서조차 이미 거의 사문화된 상태이다. 또한 배심재판과 떼어놓고는 생각할 수 없는 증거법의 영역에서도 민사배심재판의 쇠퇴로 인한 변화는 명확해 보인다. 예컨대 민사절차의 경우 배심원들이 법정에서 사라지면서 전문증거배제법칙을 적용할 필요가 없게 되어 전문증거배제규정이 축소되거나 폐지되는 등 민사증거법이 크게 축소되어가고 있는 것이 근래의 추세이다. 그러나 우리 법원의 계획대로 전 세계적인 추세를 거슬러 민사배심재판을 새롭게 도입하려면 역시 세계적인 추세와는 정반대로 민사증거법을 상당히 확충해야 할 것이며, 그럴 경우 우리 민사절차에서 증거능력 등에 별다른 제한을 두지 않고 자유롭게 증거를 수집하고 사용해온 것에 비추어볼 때 엄격한 민사증거법을 실무에서 정착시키려면 상당히 많은 문제가 발생할 것으로 예상되므로 이에 대한 신중한 논의가 필요하다고 판단된다.

국민참여재판과 항소여하

박미숙 사법발전재단 2010 사법 Vol.1 No.13

The basic principles of criminal procedure law are applied to Korean Jury Trials' ruling as those are applied to non-jury trials'. And protesting against ruling and appeal against acquittal are also permitted on Korean Jury Trials. Since the implementation of Korean Jury Trials, some have expressed a concern that the institutional significance of Korean Jury Trials could be played down with appeal cases which were brought by reason of unjust weighing of the offense and whose ruling was reversed in the appellate court. The goal of this study is to suggest desirable policy direction in a review of comparative law, about whether setting some restrictions on appeal in case (especially for acquittal) that juries' verdict concur with judge's judgement. The necessity of restriction on appeal for Korean Jury Trials is significant in the reflection of the institutional significance of Korean Jury Trials which intends to enhance democratical legitimacy of criminal justice and build up trust among the general public. The attempt to make restriction on appeal is lack of theoretical rationales under the circumstance where verdict just has advisory effect on the present Korean Jury Trials. But according to judicial precedents and scholars' opinions, restriction on appeal is acceptable in a case that juries' verdict concur with judge's judgement on acquittal in the light of the institutional meaning of Korean Jury Trials. When a determination of the conclusive form of Korean Jury Trials is made, we should consider whether making some restrictions on appeal. In addition we need to make Korean Jury Trials as one which gives legal binding force to juries' verdict and we must make restriction on appeal in a case of unanimous verdict for acquittal. And there's plenty of room for putting restriction on appeal in case of majority verdict. For instance, when a certain number of juries is secured, restriction on appeal could be accepted in a review of comparative law. 국민참여재판에 의한 판결결과에 대하여 형사소송법상 원칙이 그대로 적용되므로 판결결과에 대한 불복이 허용되며 무죄선고에 대하여도 항소가 허용된다. 국민참여재판제도가 시행된 이후 양형부당을 이유로 한 항소심에서 국민참여재판의 결과가 번복되는 예가 생기면서 국민참여재판의 제도적 의의가 무색해진다는 우려가 제기되고 있다. 본 연구는 현행 국민참여재판에 있어서 배심원평결과 법관의 선고가 일치하는 경우 특히 무죄선고의 경우에 이에 대한 항소를 제한할 것인가 하는 점에 대하여 비교법적 검토를 통하여 향후 정책방향을 제시하는데 그 목적을 둔다. 사법의 민주적 정당성과 신뢰성을 높이기 위해 도입된 국민참여재판제도의 의의에 비추어 국민참여재판에 대하여 항소를 제한할 필요성은 크다. 현행 국민참여재판법하에서 배심원평결에 대하여 권고적 효력만이 인정되고 있는 만큼 항소를 제한할 이론적ㆍ체계적 근거가 미약한 것은 사실이다. 다만 학설 및 판례의 입장에 의하면 국민참여재판제도의 의의에 비추어 적어도 배심원평결과 법관판결이 일치하면서 무죄판결인 경우에는 항소를 제한할 수는 있다. 향후 국민참여재판제도의 최종적 형태 확정 시에 국민참여재판에 대하여 항소를 제한할 것인가에 대하여는 배심원평결의 방법과 효력 등을 고려하여 검토해야 할 것이다. 배심원평결에 대하여 기속력을 인정하는 방향으로의 국민참여재판제도의 형태가 마련될 필요가 있고, 무죄의 전원일치 평결에 대하여는 항소를 제한하여야 한다. 그리고 다수결 평결을 채택하는 경우에도 이에 대한 항소를 제한할 여지는 있는데, 예컨대 비교법적 검토에 의하면 일정한 규모의 배심원 수를 확보한 경우에는 항소를 제한할 수 있다.

독일 형사소송에서 참심원

하태영 ( Tae Young Ha ) 한국비교형사법학회 2014 비교형사법연구 Vol.16 No.1

The jury trial of Korea had gone through 5 years of experimental period, which started from 2008 to 2012. Currently, the legislation has been submitted to Congress, which is being examined. The jury trial has been constantly being analyzed and discussed from both educational and professional field. There are mainly six big issues: First, the boundary or scope and selection of the case (Defendant``s will, Limited to plaintiff``s request, Opt-out vs. Opt-in method, problem of Court``s excluding process, etc.), Second, the problem of jury selection process, third, problem of trial examination of jury trial, fourth, jury``s discussion and decision-makeing process (jury system vs. Schoffengericht), fifth, jury``s sentencing process, sixth, appeal of jury trial process (whether to accept the appeal or not, etc). The paper has briefly reviewed the problems that arose from jury trial, which lasted the past six years (2008~2013) (II), and also examined the problems of Schoffengericht in Germany and the critics from Germany press. To make the understanding more clearly, the paper has introduced the recent case in Germany (III). This paper will review jury``s position and function ((Verfahrensrechtliche Stellung und Funktion), jury selection (Die Auswahl der Schoffen)(V), jury``s right to review the proper and necessary documents (Das Akteneinsichtsrecht der Schoffen)(VI), and boundary and limitation of jury``s duty (Beschrankungen der Schoffenmitwirkung). The conclusion contains the German expert and press``s criticism on jury trial of Germany (Schoffengericht). In addition to that, the paper contains the analysis of the legislation regarding on jury trial and suggestion for the future improvement (VII). From the examination of jury trial of Germany, many new issues had been arose, and based on that there are a several questions to Korea``s jury trial. 1. [The number of jury] In order for the jury trial to be actively activated, how many juries do we need?2. [Jury selection process] How long are we going to waste our time from trying to come up with the questions to exclude the ``unfair juries``?3. [legitimacy of Jury] Are all juries properly tested? chosen? Are they fair? What does public expect from juries?4. [Jury trial``s overloaded-duty] If all the cases are to be treated with jury trial, how is court going to solve the overload problem?The meaning of jury trial of Germany is about regulating-function, but in nowadays, the jury trial in Germany has became meaningless in terms of press-regulation and judicial trust. In Germany most of the criminal cases are solved through a bench-trial, and it is most likely that Germany would come up with the reformation of jury trial within 10 years. Therefore, it is important to analyze the merits and demerits of jury trial of Germany closely.

The Effects of Trial Procedure Factors and Deliberation Factors on Shadow Jurors’ Perceptions about the Fairness of Jury Trials in Korea

( Jisuk Woo ),( June Woong Rhee ),( Jae-hyup Lee ) 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2021 Journal of Korean Law Vol.20 No.2

Using survey data collected from 295 shadow jury participants in 20 jury trial cases between January and June of 2012 in South Korea, we examined whether various factors in the court proceedings and deliberations affected the shadow jurors’ perception of trial fairness and their evaluation of the jury trials in general. We found that the shadow jurors’ perceptions about the fairness of the trial were accounted for by their perceptions of how well the judges managed the trials and of how helpful the judges were in assisting the deliberation process. The shadow jurors did not think the trial was less fair because they perceived the case to be complex. Nor did they think the trial was fairer because the prosecutor made a good case against the defendant or because the defense counsel made a good defense. On the other hand, the shadow jurors’ support of the jury system in general was influenced by very different explanatory variables. The jurors’ personal characteristics, such as their degree of cognitive wants, influenced how desirable they thought the jury system is for the fairness of the trial. The shadow jurors who enjoyed debates and were willing to solve difficult problems and to learn new things were more likely to appreciate the jury trial as an institution to advance fairness in criminal justice. Also, the more the shadow jurors thought that they actively participated in the discussion process, the more desirable they considered to the jury system to be in advancing fairness. In conclusion, the shadow jurors’ attitudes toward the desirability of the jury trial most depends on the assessment of their own cognitive abilities and wants and their willingness to actively participate in the discussion.

배심원재판에서의 절차권 보장과 평결에 대한 承服

권혁재 경북대학교 법학연구원 2019 법학논고 Vol.0 No.66

The jury trial has its essential characteristics in that judging the substantive relationship of the dispute is made by a jury composed of ordinary people rather than professional judges. The persuasive power of judgments by the jury is found in rendering judgments based on the sense of justice in common sense generally held by ordinary people while paying attention to the values ​​pursued through a litigation by the parties involved in dispute. In the case of a jury trial, in terms of characteristics in the composition of the judging entity or trial procedure, it may be easier to secure the voluntary acceptance of the litigant parties. If a professional judge is the subject of judgment, the parties have to stay in a passive position in the decision made by the subject of judgment. On the other hand, in the case of jury trial, it is possible to exclude a candidate who is judged to have a prejudice unfavorable to the party concerned through an application for exclusion from the selection of jury members, so the consciousness of being a subject in the procedure can be endowed. A concentrated trial and discussion are carried out through a language (oral statement) focusing on the issues compressed during the process of trial or the process of discussion, making the parties have the sense of identity being the subjects of the procedure and the audiences at the same time. A concentrated trial and the following process of subsequent discussion increase the participants’ predictability of results and, at the same time, increase the possibility of understanding and accepting the conclusions. The jury trial is a sample of the oral argument system in particular. The procedure of jury trial, in which all information and evidences are presented through oral statement, has the effect of enhancing the sense of unity between the speaker (who explains the factual relations and expresses an opinion on certain issues) and audiences, the subject and object. who are the characteristics of oral statement culture. These characteristics are obviously contrasted with the trial procedure in a way of paper-based litigation in which all explanations and arguments are made in printed letters on paper. Explanations and arguments in the jury trial take the form of storytelling that is convenient for the audience to understand. The jury trial is also characterized by the form of storytelling taken in all opening statements or final arguments by counsels being influenced by the way of a juror’s persuasion method against other jurors in the process of discussion which takes the form of storytelling. It also cannot be excluded that there may occur a verdict deviated from the law due to the jurors’ ignorance of the law which is applied to the trial. Such knowledge of the law is obtained from the instructions to the jury made by the judge. From the past, the judge’s instructions consisted of legal terms which only the legal experts understand, so the jurors have been criticized for failing to understand the contents and attending to the verdict. To solve these problems, it is necessary to change the professional terms to ordinary terms that are easy-to-understand and proper to the level of the jurors, and at the same time, a concern in terms of the lingual-psychological level should be realized. Concurrently, it is appropriate that the judge’s instructions are made first at the beginning stage of the trial and immediately before the commencement of final discussion. 배심원재판은 분쟁의 실체관계에 대한 판단을 직업법관이 아닌 평범한 일반으로 구성된 배심원단에서 한다는 점에서 그 본질적 특성이 있다. 이러한 배심원단에 의한 판단의 설득력은 분쟁당사자가 쟁송을 통하여 추구하는 가치에 유의하면서 일반인들이 보편적으로 가지고 있는 상식에 입각한 정의감을 기초로 한 판단을 내리는 데서 찾을 수 있다. 배심원평결의 경우에는 그 판단하는 주체의 구성이나 심리절차의 특성상 소송당사자들의 자발적 승복 확보가 쉽다. 직업법관이 판단의 주체인 경우에는 당사자들이 판단주체의 결정에서 단순히 수동적인 지위에 머물 수밖에 없다. 배심원재판에서는 배심원단 선정에서부터 제외신청을 통하여 그에게 불리한 편견을 가진 자로 판단되는 후보자를 제외할 수 있으므로 절차상의 주체라는 의식을 심어줄 수 있다. 심리과정이나 평의과정에서 압축된 쟁점을 중심으로 하여 집중심리와 평의가 말(구술)을 통하여 이루어지면서 당사자들은 그 절차의 주체이면서 동시에 청중으로서 동질감을 느끼게 한다. 집중심리와 이에 곧바로 이어지는 평의과정은 참여자들로 하여금 결과에 대한 예측가능성을 높여주고, 동시에 결론에 대하여 납득하고 승복할 수 있는 가능성을 높여 준다. 배심원재판은 구술심리주의의 표본이다. 구술을 통하여 모든 정보와 증거자료가 현출되는 배심원심리절차는 구술문화의 특성이라 할 대화자(구술로 사실관계를 설명하고 어떤 쟁점에 대하여 의견을 표명하는 자)와 청중, 주체와 객체의 일체감을 높여주는 효과가 있다. 이러한 특성은 종이에 인쇄된 문자로 모든 설명과 주장이 이루어지는 종이소송 방식의 심리절차와 대비를 이룬다. 배심원들의 평의 과정에서 이루어지는 다른 배심원들에 대한 설득은 스토리텔링 형식을 취하고 있고, 변호인들의 모두 진술이나 최종변론 역시 스토리텔링 형식을 취하는 것이 특색이라 할 수 있다. 배심원들이 재판에 적용되는 법에 대한 무지로 인하여 발생하는 법 일탈적인 평결도 배제할 수 없다. 판사의 배심원들에 대한 설시가 법률전문가들만 이해할 수 있는 법률용어들로 구성되어 있어서 배심원들이 그 내용을 이해하지 못하고 평결에 임하고 있다는 비판이 있다. 배심원들의 수준에 맞추어 전문용어를 이해하기 쉬운 일상용어들로 바꾸고 동시에 언어심리학적 차원의 배려가 이루어져야 한다. 판사의 설시는 심리의 시작 단계에서 먼저 이루어지고 최종 평의 개시 직전에 한 번 더 이루어 이루어지는 것이 적절하다.

국민참여재판의 개선방안에 대한 연구

김태규 한국형사정책연구원 2008 형사정책연구 Vol.76 No.-

The jury trial has been introduced to our Korean legal system for the first time in our history. We expect this new trial system to improve people’s credit to the Court and to give democratic control to the Court. We believe this system has opened a great new era in our legal history. For the jury trial to settle firmly in our country as a new efficient system, it will need a lot of understanding from people and very positive efforts on the part of lawyers. However, the newly established jury trial system is not completely implemented as of yet and is different from the American jury trial. In the American trial system, the judge is bound by the jury’s decision, but in the Korean trial system, the judge is not bound by the jury’s decision. Rather, the jury can only give the judge a recommendation how to decide. It is a mixed type of both the American Jury Trial system and the German lay assessor system (Schöffengericht). This dissertation is written with the purpose of finding out how the new jury trial has actually been implemented in the court for the past 8 months, and how the new jury trial should be changed and improved. The new jury trial has revealed many flaws in its implementation. I guess this has resulted from several reasons such as it is not a complete type of trial, just a testing type and it is a mixed type of both the American jury trial system and the German lay assessor system. Now I will briefly introduce how the real practice has been performed in each phase of the new jury procedure. I also try to recommend how the jury trial system should be changed for the developed one in the future. My own opinion in this dissertation is similar to those below. First, we have to adopt the American jury trial system, and eliminate the lay assessor system. Second, the judge should be bound to the decision of the jury. Third, the jury should not deal with the assessment of punishment on criminal, the jury should only decide guilty or not guilty, and the assessment of punishment should belong to the Judge. I also recommend several other things. 우리나라에 근대사법제도가 도입된 이래 처음으로 도입되는 국민참여재판은 그동안 사법부에 대하여 쌓여 왔던 국민들의 불신을 해소하고, 사법에 대한 국민에 의한 민주적 통제를 가능하게 하였다는 점에서 우리 사법 역사에서 새로운 장을 열었다 할 수 있다. 그리고 이러한 참여재판을 견고한 우리 사법의 한 제도로 정착시키는 데는 많은 국민들의 깊은 이해와 법률가들의 적극적인 노력이 필요할 것이다. 다만 이러한 국민참여재판이 아직은 시험단계로 완전한 기속력을 가지지 못하고, 또한 영미식의 배심재판제도에 대륙법계에서 대체적으로 채택하고 있는 참심제적 요소가 가미된 형태로 시행되고 있는 단계이다. 본 논문에서는 이렇게 시행된 참여재판이 실제 재판을 운영하는 과정에서 어떠한 문제점을 노출시켰으며, 어떠한 형태로 개선되는 것이 바람직한 것인가를 제안하는데 주안점을 두고 작성하였다. 시험기의 입법이라는 점과 배심과 참심이라는 이질적인 요소가 뒤섞여 입법되면서 실제 운영에서 많은 문제점을 나타내고 있다. 이를 각 공판단계별로 나누어 망라하면서 현재 운영상황을 간단히 소개하고, 향후 정착된 국민참여재판을 위한 입법이 이루어 질 때 바람직한 입법방향을 제시하고자 하였다. 그리고 그 기본방향은 배심제를 기본으로 하는 국민참여재판을 도입하고 참심제적 요소를 배제시키며, 배심원 평결에 구속력을 부여하고, 양형토의제도를 폐지하는 등의 형태로 개정되어야 한다는 입장이다.

국민참여재판의 12년 성과와 과제 - 배심원의 책무 및 배심원 평의·평결절차와 효력을 중심으로 -

한성훈 아주대학교 법학연구소 2019 아주법학 Vol.13 No.1

Public participation trials have been introduced and implemented since 2008. The system can realize national sovereignty and participatory democracy by participating as a jury or preliminary jury in the criminal trial as the subject of the trial. The system is intended to enhance the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the judiciary and to establish a justice system trusted by the people. However, even now, public participation trials maintain a tentative trial form, which has resulted in various problems during the first phase of pilot operation. At the time of the 12th anniversary of its implementation, the problems still remain unresolved. Particularly, if the validity of the jury's judgment and verdict, which is considered to be a point of the public participation trial, is maintained as it is, it should be considered as a priority because it can make meaning or purpose of the introduction of the system of public participation trial meaningless I can think of it as a matter. Therefore, the proposal by the National Assembly for the Judiciary Participation Committee and by the government was critically reviewed. Therefore, the method and validity of the jury's judgment should be given to the jury's verdict in order to fully realize the public participation trial system in accordance with the purpose and purpose of the introduction. Meanwhile, in March 2018, the Korean government changed the right to a trial by a judge to a right to a trial by a court in relation to Article 27 (1) and Article 101 (1) of the Constitution. It created the possibility of introducing future jurisdictions and bureaucracies as well as provisional forms such as the current public participation trial. Therefore, it seems that the social and political atmosphere for the revitalization of the public participation trial has been formed. In addition, the policies of the National People's Participation Trial System are also proceeding in the direction of expanding and strengthening the right of people's participation in the judicial process. In this respect, in order to secure the credibility and fairness of the jury verdict, which is the point of the public participation trial, it is necessary to clarify the authority and responsibility of the jury and to improve the jury's ability to judge the judgment I think that jury education is necessary. However, in such law education, it is necessary to educate the procedures and the principles of direct participatory trial for the people who are selected as the jury first. In addition to this, it is necessary to educate lawyers about potential jurors and the lifetime of adult jurors Education should be done. 국민참여재판은 국민이 재판의 주체로서 형사재판에 배심원 또는 예비배심원으로 참여하여 국민주권주의·참여민주주의의 실현을 통해 사법의 민주적 정당성과 투명성을 제고하고 국민으로부터 신뢰받는 사법제도를 확립하겠다는 취지로 지난 2008년부터 도입·시행하고 있다. 그러나 현재에도 국민참여재판은 시범운영적 성격을 가진 잠정적 재판형태를 유지하고 있으며, 이로 인해 제1단계 시범운영기간 동안 다양한 문제들이 야기되었다. 그러나 시행 12째를 맞이한 현 시점에서도 여전히 그러한 문제 들이 해결되고 있지 않고 있다. 그 중에서도 특히나 국민참여재판의 핵심적인 부분이 라고 할 수 있는 배심원 평의·평결의 효력이 현행과 같이 유지된다면, 국민참여재판 제도의 도입취지 내지 목적을 형해화 할 수 있다는 점에서 최우선적으로 검토되어야할 사안으로 보고, 국민사법참여위원회 안과 정부제출 안을 비판적으로 검토하였다. 이에 배심원 평결방식과 효력은 국민참여재판제도가 도입취지와 목적에 맞게 온전히 실현되고, 활성화되기 위해서는 배심원의 평결에 법적기속력을 부여해야 한다. 한편 우리 정부는 2018년 3월 헌법 제27조 제1항 및 제101조 제1항과 관련하여 그동안 국민의 사법참여의 장애가 되었던 ‘법관에 의해 재판받을 권리’를 ‘법원에 의해 재판받을 권리’로 변경하여 현행 국민참여재판과 같은 잠정적인 형태뿐만 아니라 향후 배심제와 참심제가 도입 될 수 있는 가능성을 열어 두었다. 이에 국민참여재판의 활성화를 위한 사회적·정치적 분위기는 형성되었다고 본다. 게다가 국민참여재판제도의 정책들 또한 사법절차에서 국민의 참여권을 확대·강화하여 활성화 시킬 수 있는 방향으로 진행 되고 있다. 그러한 점에서 국민참여재판의 핵심이라고 할 수 있는 배심원 평결의 신뢰성과 공정성을 확보하기 위해서는 배심원의 권한과 책임을 명확히 함과 동시에 배심원의 자질과 재판에 대한 판단능력, 그리고 참여재판에 대한 이해도를 향상시키기 위한 배심원 법교육이 반드시 필요하다고 본다. 다만 그러한 법교육에 있어서는 우선적으로 배심원으로 선정된 사람들에 대한 직접적인 참여재판의 절차 및 원칙에 대한 교육이 필요하겠지만, 이와 더불어서 잠재적 배심원이라고 할 수 있는 청소년에 대한 법교육과 예비 배심원들인 성인들에 대한 평생교육이 이루어져야 할 것이다.

Are the Jury Trials 'Vanishing' in Korea?- With a Discussion on Comparative Perspectives of the American Jury Trials -

공영호 충북대학교 법학연구소 2020 法學硏究 Vol.31 No.1

The rate of jury trial requests and the rate of actual jury trials conducted in Korea has declined, raising a concern as to whether the public interest and demand in jury trials are diminishing in Korea. There are several factors that have contributed to the diminishing jury trials. The first factor is related to the criticism on the competency and emotional bias of lay jurors as to whether they can make right decisions based on the evidence and testimonies presented at trial. The second factor is that jury trials are believed to cause a lot of burden to the court system, prosecutors, and defense attorneys and that there are problems in assuring that defendants make informed decisions on jury trial requests. And the third factor is that judges have exercised wide discretion in deciding jury trial requests. The fourth factor is that currently there are some concerns in the management of jury trials because of time constraint. In this article, I addressed the merits of each factor and the related concerns. First, I responded to the criticism over jurors’ competency and emotional neutrality by arguing that their capacity has been underestimated and their role misunderstood. Secondly, I addressed the concern about the burden to the courts and attorneys. Third, I proposed that defendants should be provided with adequate and sufficient information so that they can make informed decision on jury trial requests. Fourth, the judges should not exercise their discretion too arbitrarily in denying jury trial requests. Fifth, more sufficient time should be allocated to voir dire selection so that potential jurors with biases or conflicts of interest can be screened out, and trial time should be extended when a large quantity of evidence and number of witnesses necessitate it. Jury trials should not remain merely as a symbolism for democratic judiciary. They should remain as the bulwark and beacon of democratic process in which public can participate in judicial decision-making along with the judges. Inconvenience from conducting jury trials should not be used as an excuse for shunning jury trials. Unfair trials should not be an option for criminal defendants or any parties for that matter.

국민참여재판제도의 운영상 문제점과 개선방안

김형준,김숙희 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2009 法學論文集 Vol.33 No.1

This article deals with the problems of current lay-people participatory trial system and suggests its reformation. It can be summerized as follows. First, a lay-people participatory trial can start by application of a defendant, so to speak, formed in an opt-in way. Often, a defendant does not want or hesitates to take part in it. If a defendant does not say otherwise, a case in question should be in principle subject to a lay-people participatory trial. Therefore, the opt-out way seems to be more desirable. Also, the sort of cases subject to jury trial should be expanded. Second, in the process of jury selection, it is pointed out as problems that people is so passive in the participation of jury trial. In the jury inquiry process, the inefficient forms of questions and too comprehensive questions prevent fair composition of jury. Therefore, the alternative should be setting up the social environment in which a person does not feel any burden to join a court process as a juror. Thus, to make up a fair jury, you should develop a efficient way of inquiry. To prevent the infliction of a juror's privacy, a jury selection inquiry can be reviewed, prevented or changed by a court. Third, a juror have difficulty in understanding legal terminology that is used in a courtroom, and also illegal witness statements and tangible evidence. Also, it becomes problematic whether a prosecutor can make a closing comment even after a defense attorney make it. Therefore, the terminology in a courtroom and the way of process should be moderated for the benefit of jurors for better verdict. Moreover, illegal witness statement should be partly used but a witness should be directly examined. In addition, to prevent mislead decision of jury, it seems desirable that a prosecutor can make a rebuttal argument based on some standards even after a defense lawyer's closing argument. Fourth, in a deliberation process, the practicality of jury trial has been questioned because of the issues of disagreements between jury's and judge's decision, the mere recommendatory effect of jury verdict and the conflict between our appellate system and typical jury system. Therefore, the alternative should be to provide the binding force with jury verdict for a unanimous jury decision of not-guilty. Ultimately, every single jury verdict should not be overturned by trial judge's decision. Moreover, we need to more support pre-trial process to make a decision of a trial court more powerful and not overturned by a appellate court. In addition, a appellate court should respect for a jury decision and make stricter review on jury decision than judge's decision.

복잡한 재판을 처리할 수 있는 배심원의능력에 대한 연구

공영호 ( Young Ho Kong ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.3

Similar to the patent trial between Samsung and Apple, there have been many jurytrials which involve complex legal and factual matters. Also, the technical nature of trialmatters added to the complexity of trials. The subject of continuing controversies iswhether the jurors who are composed of average lay people can make correct judgmentsand come to the right and justifiable verdicts in such complex trials. With themodernization and specialization of trial matters came many cases with enormousamounts of evidentiary pieces and information, some of which can be very difficult tocomprehend for lay jurors who are mostly not trained in law. However, it is argued that the combined mental capacities and abilities to rememberfactual evidences by all jurors are more than sufficient to compensate for the averagenessof individual jurors. With the adequate jury instructions and guidelines by the court, thejury will be able to come to the right decision by using their collective intellect, wisdomand passion for justice. On the other hand, it can be argued that judges are better able to deal with complextrials than jurors because judges are formally educated and trained in law and have moreexperiences in interpreting legal issues and evidences in logical ways. Even if they arenot well versed in particular fields, they can be trained and can accumulate necessary knowledge and expertise over time. The proponents of the jury system may claim that the collective wisdom of twelvejurors can be better in terms of making correct decisions than one judge who is toorestricted by strict legal methodologies and subsequent interpretation. The decision oftwelve jurors with diverse backgrounds, life experiences and wisdom can gain morepublic support and sympathies than individual judges who can be perceived toodetached from realities and being aloof. Ultimately, it seems to be very difficult for the jury to make right judgments anddecisions due to the complexities and technicalities associated with some trials. Whereasthe judges can be continuously trained and equipped with necessary information andknowledge in specific areas of law, the jury is not allowed to do so, even if it appearsnecessary. However, it seems to be undesirable to exclude jury trials unilaterally in thosetrials because it is difficult to set up clear and concrete standards for such exclusions,and furthermore there is a risk of subjective views being reflected in applying theexclusion standards. The exclusion of jury trials based on conceivably ambiguous standards may deprivethe parties of the right to receive jury trials under the U.S. Constitution and the Koreanlaws on jury trials. It seems that a better approach is to find the ways to assist the jurorsin making adequate judgments and verdicts in complex jury trials. This approachshould be preceded by the changed perceptions of judges and lawyers who need toovercome their preconceptions about jurors and to have more positive perspectives onjurors. One of the most fundamental ways to improve jurors`` capacities in complex trialswould be to improve jury instructions so that jurors can better understand and applylaws into the given facts. Also, the bifurcation of trial procedures into the causationphase and the remaining trial phases would be helpful in making jurors focus on thespecific matters that they need to focus without being distracted by other collateralmatters. The utilization of court-appointed experts would give important guidelines tojurors who can be led in the right directions in decision-making process. Additionally,allowing jurors to take notes, to pose questions to the witnesses, and to discussthemselves prior to jury deliberations can help them in making adequate decisions incomplex trials as long as they are implemented with some precautionary measures and followed by adequate jury instructions.