* 현재 컨텐츠 정보를 준비 중에 있습니다.

[닫기]

In this study, I looked into criminal appeal procedure and legislation
history of appeal, reviewed on function and structure of a trial on an appeal
case and an appeal to the Supreme court in relation to needs for restructuring
of appeal, and analyzed revised regulations stated in a revised bill of the
Ministry of Justice.
First, it is very significant to increase the number of judicial officers, as the
U.S. entrust the first hearing to one judge and make three judges reach an
agreement for reinforcement of the function of criminal trials on an appeal
case. In the case that this proposal is adopted, it is also needed to consider
to expand the justice researcher system currently only at the Supreme
Court.
In addition, to remove speedy trial for a trial on an appeal case, to limit
submission of new lawsuit data, and to make trials on an appeal case a
pure post trial re-judging the right or wrong of the initial trial are all
important. If a trial on an appeal case is converted into a pure post trial,
then real trial is concentrated at the initial trial, and then as a trial on an
appeal case proceeds focusing on legal judgement for distributed points in
detail, unnecessary appeals could be reduced.
Problems with current appeal system are caused by weakening of legal trial
and insufficiency of a right relief. With recognition of the problems, what could
be discussed includes placement of an appeal trial department under a high court of justice, so as to have them responsible for the third hearing of real
trial, ‘the alternative fourth hearing system’ which enable to choose
insubordination procedures by making the Supreme Court a pure legal trial,
‘the alternative system of Supreme Court’ that allow the collegiate court to
make a judgement, which consists of a particular number of judges including a
justice of the Supreme Court, for insignificant cases while allowing the
representative council which consists of only justice of the Supreme Court to
make a judgement for significant cases, ‘the restraint system of final appeal’s
reason’ which reduces reasons for an appeal regulated by the current Criminal
Procedure Clause 383 as a way of attempting legal trial of the Supreme Court,
maintaining trial construction or the composition of the Supreme Court under
the current structure, ‘omission of statement of ground,’ as practically a
solution identical to an appeal permission, except for cases corresponding to
the existing permission on the final appeal’s reason in the cases that an appeal
is rejected, adoption of a procedure to omit statement of ground, against
judgement of the Supreme Court which excludes the adjudication’s omission
from reasons for re-trial in the case of omission of ground’s statement.
Nonetheless, limited adoption of actual punishment of punish for insufficient
case that lacks appropriate reasons before a warrant of arrest is issued as in
the case that a person who received summary procedure of fine execute
workhouse.
Also in relation to the system of reference’s statement, for the prediction cases
of a heated discussion on legal principles, socially very controversial events,
events that affects fate of a country or a policy, it is worth hearing experts'
opinions, so it is appropriate to have a legal background for new legislation. The
Supreme Court could gather important information through persons indirectly
related to significant events, but not the persons directly involved, raise the level
of justice through hearing procedures from relevant government departments or
civil organizations, make socially accepted judgements in the process to
constantly improve the pitfalls of the structure of lawsuits.

[닫기]