형사재심에 대한 비판적인 고찰

In the event of misjudgment in the court, disproving evidence must be possible to be submitted after the case. Since the courts in the country have been holding a very strict stance in their interpretation of reasons for retrial starting, retrial system, which is a disproving system after the case, couldn’t be applied properly in the country. In terms of legislative chronicle, the current retrial system seems to have embraced retrial practice of France in its content. From perspective of comparative law, France and Germany more widely acknowledge reasons for retrial compared with Korea. Low acceptance rate for retrial in the Great Britain and the US must have greatly been influenced by their application of adversary system in judicial procedure and strict evidence principle. Japan has been broadening its interpretation of reasons for retrial starting since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1975. In retrial, two criteria of justice and stability of law as ideals of criminal procedures are sometimes in conflict. However, the Radbruch Formula can’t be applied to retrial, and justice and stability of law is interpreted as keeping an equilibrium by the will and decision of judges to some degrees. In terms of methodology for interpretation of law, four current criteria of interpretation have the equal value but if they are in conflict, teleological interpretation precedes others, in which case constitutional interpretation must be applied. In its interpretation of reason for retrial opening, newness of evidence is deemed necessary only to the courts. In judging clearness of evidence, the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo' must be applied and also judgment must be done by synthesis of new and previous evidences based on the approach of general evaluation. While the courts maintain more flexible stance on the general evaluation these days, they still interpret reasons of retrial starting strictly. The current circumstances require judges to orient to more positive and progressive postures.