사형폐지의 정당성 - 사법살인과 오판에 의한 사형 -

In case of ‘Judical Murder’, there is not any definite conclusion at this stage if a judicial murder could be ended perfectly even though it is in progress to investigate in recent years. In case of ‘Wrongful Convictions of the Death Penalty’, also, there is just to point out the possibility and to admit it unofficially among judiciaries, and our Justice Department has been silent. In the investigation stage, a case is fabricated with a false confession by prejudgement starting with an illegal arrest. In the background, there is a doubtful confession, that if a suspect is same as a criminal or not, rather than depending on conclusive evidences. The prosecution, that should directed to the investigation of investigative agencies, prosecutes people without proper identification if a suspect is same as a criminal, and does things like ignoring or hiding negative evidences whether accidentally on purpose or by mistakes. Shameful judicial mistakes, that do not doubt the voluntariness of one´s confession which is the biggest causes of misjudgement and take it as a proof of guilt without confirmatory evidences accidentally on purpose or by mistakes, are appeared at the stage of trial. The testimony of an eyewitness or an partner in crime should be investigated if it is reliable or not, but a judge sentenced to death because he/she made the mistake of not on behalf of the accused due to the prejudgement due to the circumstance. Such reasons could be confirmed through death cases that doubt misjudgement of cases and judicial murders as mentioned. In conclusion, there are no reform measures or alternatives except the abolition of the death penalty not to make victims and innocent men being wrongfully accused. As humans who have errors of the cognitive ability and the limit, the tries to reform the penal system with inherent problems based on those errors and limits can be said to be impossible. So, the job to establish the problem of death by judicial murders and misjudgement as substantial argument for the abolition of the death penalty should be an important task for scholars in the criminal law of common sense. Based on this, it is needed to remove the judicial officials' opposition, to press legislators in criminal and to prepare grounds to support the legitimacy against general public opinion to maintain the death penalty. Starting with this research, I hope to make progresses in careful and empirical research and analysis on cases of death penalty from the establishment of the government to 1997 that are different from the statistics from now on.