구술심리의 실무적 고찰

The supreme court tried to provide higher quality of law service by oral trials to maximize the communication between parties and judges, and in due process tried to make the interested party appear persuasive and enhance the reliability of the judicature and proceeding satisfaction by the judge’s natural exposure of the conviction. However, the reality of trial currently cannot sufficiently meet the above conditions. The new model is estimated to bring generally positive results the reduction of appointed trial date for lawyers or waiting period etc. but it appears that the discrepancy between the ideal of oral trial and the reality felt by surveyed lawyers on the scene is significantly different. Although many legislations of countries stipulate revival or revitalization of oral trials, but it seems that most countries except England and the United States etc. fail to bring satisfactory results. If judges and courts are enlarged to guarantee sufficient time for oral trial proceeding per each case and if facial expressions and behavior changes are well reflected by methods such as stenography, sound recording, and video recording, substantial oral trials can be proceeded. Therefore in the status quo, the success or failure of oral trial depends on judges’ability to grasp the core and issue of cases and to proceed trials skillfully and parties and lawyers’ preparation for and attitude toward oral trials. If an oral trial is enforced without the preparations above, it will eventually be a wasteful formality providing little help understanding the facts of a case. Hence, to revitalize oral trials, positive attitude of partakers of lawsuits, narrowing the gap between the ideal and reality in oral trial, acknowledging flexible choice of trial methods, substantial recording of oral trials, and enforcing oral trial training of preparatory lawyers and so forth are needed.