2006년 형사소송법 개정안에 대한 검토의견

An Expert Opinion on Reform Bill of Criminal Procedure Act 2006

&nbsp;&nbsp;Korea has been undergoing a major Judicial Reform since 2003. In 2005, the Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform proposed a draft bill of the revised Criminal Procedure Act to the President of Republic of Korea. The draft was approved by the State Council. In 2006, the Government officially adopted the revised bill and submitted it to the National Assembly of Republic of Korea. In September of 2006, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly held a hearing on the proposed reform bill of the Criminal Procedure Act. The author of this article gave an opinion in the hearing as an expert. This article is based on the manuscript of the presented opinion, which advocates the proposed reform bill of the Criminal Procedure Act.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;The author points out that the current Criminal Procedure Act is outdated and needs to be reformed. The Criminal Procedure Act was originally enacted in 1954 directly after the end of Korean War (1950-1953), when Korea was stricken with poverty and under extreme chaos. It is proposed that the Criminal Procedure Act needs to be reformed as to reflect today&quot;s economical, political, and social development of Korea adequately. The author also emphasizes that the proposed bill of the Criminal Procedure Act is a well-timed bill, which can maximize the use of the limited resources in the adminstration of justice.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;The author proposes that it is necessary to evaluate and reconstruct the selection process of criminal cases as to meet the social change of Korea today. In this point of view, the proposed reform bill of the Criminal Procedure Act, which enables speedy trial proceeding of minor cases and reduces the work load of the Supreme Court of Korea through the appeal in the High Courts, is highly appreciated.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Furthermore, the author makes a request that the oral proceedings be enhanced to improve the transparency of trial procedures. The author, therefore, stresses that the revised contents of Evidence Law, which include the introduction of interrogating officer&quot;s testimony, are appropriate for improvement of transparency. In addition, the author finds positive aspects in enhanced transparency of investigation procedure, reinforced control of confinement, and expanded victim protection in the proposed reform bill. However, lack of judicial control after an arrest without warrant is considered a limitation of the proposed reform bill of the Criminal Procedure Act 2006.