프랑스 배심제의 절차와 최근의 쟁점

Criminal Jury System in France

오늘날 우리나라와 비교해 볼 때 프랑스의 배심제도는 양과 질적 측면 모두에서 우리나라의 제도 실천보다 높다고 평가할 수 있다. 이 연구의 목적은 프랑스 배심제의 기원과 연혁, 구조와 현황, 최근의 변화를 검토하여 우리나라의 국민참여재판제도 개선을 위한 시사점을 찾는 것이다. 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 프랑스의 경우 배심재판에서 법관의 역할이 보통법계 국가의 배심재판에서 법관의 역할보다 상대적으로 크며, 법관과 배심원 모두 유·무죄 여부와 양형에 관하여 함께 판단한다는 점에서 우리의 제도와 유사한 측면을 공유한다. 둘째, 프랑스 사례는 배심재판(국민참여재판)의 대상/배정 방식과 관련하여 강제주의를 도입하는 방안이나, 배심원의 유·무죄 판단과 양형 판단 기준을 세우는 방안, 배심원 평결의 기속력을 강화하는 방안, 연일 개정 등과 같은 운영 차원의 방안을 고민할 때에 시사점을 줄 수 있다. 셋째, 항소제도, 판결이유 기재, 형사법원 도입 등 2000년대 이후 변화 과정은 배심원 평결 우월성 이념과 국민 참여의 원칙을 변화하는 시대적, 사회적 맥락에 맞게 재해석하는 한편, 그것을 실현할 구체적인 제도를 모색하려는 시도로 평가할 수 있으며, 공정한 재판을 받을 권리를 보장하면서도 재판절차의 효율성을 담보할 수 있는 제도적 틀을 생각할 때에 일정한 시사점을 줄 수 있다.

Sixteen years after the introduction of the “citizen participation in criminal trials” (hereinafter referred to as “jury trials”) in 2008 with the aim of ensuring public participation in the judiciary and resolving judicial distrust, there is now a consensus on the need to improve the system. In particular, the number of completed cases relative to the number of registered cases has been gradually declining since the mid-2010s, raising the need to strengthen the system. At the same time, some have pointed out the constraints of expanding the scope and scale of jury trials under current conditions, while others have emphasized the constraints imposed by the Constitution, which stipulates the right to be tried by a judge. With these issues in mind, this article examines the French jury system, which has been relatively unexplored, from the perspective of a comparative case study as a way to deepen the debate. Korean jury system is characterized as a mix of the Anglo-American jury system and the continental European lay assessor system. French system shares similarities with Korean system in that the role of the judge in jury trials is relatively greater than that in jury trials in common law countries, and in that the judge and jury make decisions at the guilt and punishment phase, although judges are not bound by the jury's verdict in Korean system. The purpose of this study is to examine the origins, history, structure, and current status of the French jury system, as well as recent changes, in order to find implications for improving the Korean jury system. The nature of the changes in the French jury trial system needs to be examined in the context of assessing the relative level of change. In this perspective, it is difficult to characterize the French jury trial reform as a 'success' or a 'failure'. Recent changes can be assessed as an attempt to refine the conditions of citizen participation in order to make the meaning of a jury verdict clearer. However, it is also true that there are conditions that make it difficult to expand the practice of the jury system in terms of procedures and costs of criminal trials, and that it is not easy to implement alternatives to it. In the end, to narrow the gap between normativism and realism, it is necessary to look at the experience of implementing a system in order to create a detailed system. French case can be seen as an attempt to reinterpret the ideology of the supremacy of juries over judges and the principle of people’s participation to reflect changing times and social contexts, and to find mechanisms to realize it. The principle of people's participation itself has never been denied in the waves of changes. That is the most important implication which can be drawn from the review of the French case.