공판준비기일의 합리적 운용방안에 대한 연구

Preparatory Proceeding may make trial more efficient and intensive. However this procedure may include to the risk factors that it, with its procedural processes, replaces the trial, or becomes formalistic and skeleton. Its risk factor increases proportionally when the criminal justice has a strong predilection toward economic practicality. That’s one of the reasons why Preparatory Proceeding should not serve solely for the effectiveness or promptness of trials. This must be based on the understanding that it is not to resolve the burden of criminal justice caused by the delay of hearings, one pitfall of the principles of trial-centeredness, but to faithfully execute the Preparatory Proceeding in the existing Criminal Procedure Law well in advance so that focused and substantial trials become possible and, thus, result in prompt outcome. Otherwise, it will just be an institution that assumes the program similar to pretrial hearing and a mode of the trial controlled by judge’s conviction based on the written evidence. The idea of trial-centeredness is that the formation of fact-finder’s conviction must be done in a court in session with the support from the principle of the legal planning of modernization of the criminal procedures. It can be hardly justified that, despite of the factthat the subject is the trial court, the formation of the conviction in the preparatory proceeding is made into a frameworkin a court. Therefore the proper role of the Preparatory Procedure should be to maximize the availability of evidence and information and to adequately arrange them for the formation of fact-finder’s rational conviction in a court in session.