진술조력인 제도에 관한 소고 : 피해자변호사 제도와의 비교 분석을 중심으로

Intermediary system was introduced by the amendment of the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Violence Crimes on Nov 12, 2012, and has been in effect since December 19, 2013. In addition, by stipulating that the Special Act on Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes, etc., enacted on April 1, 2014, the victim of child abuse crime can also be assisted by a statement assistant. Germany also revised Article 406 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Germany through the so-called Third Victims Rights Reform Act, and by enacting the “Law on Statutory Assistance in Criminal Procedure(Gesetz über die psychosoziale Prozessbegleitung im Strafverfahren)”, intermediary(Psychosoziale Prozessbegleiter) is in operation from January 1, 2017. The main role of intermediary is to assist or mediate in communication with the victim in the investigation or trial process. The activities of the intermediary in Korea are focused on the intermediation of communication between investigative agencies or courts and victims. On the other hand, in Germany, the activities of the intermediary are not limited to mediation and assistance with the victims. In Korea and Germany, however, it is the same in that it states the neutral duty of intermediary. It is to prevent the distortion of the victim's statement and the contamination of the testimony in order to discover the substantive truth. In this study, for future development of the intermediary system, I will try to find implications by comparing the intermediary systems between German and Korea. The victim 's lawyer and intermediary have the characteristic of being active supporter to provide legal and communicative support to the victim. Both schemes are designed to provide direct and realistic assistance to victims with the focus of support. The difference between the victim's lawyer and intermediary can be found in the context of' legal aid ‘and’ non - legal aid'. There is also a different status in helping victims within the criminal procedure. In other words, the victim's lawyer helps the victim in the status of 'advocate of profits for victim', but intermediary assists the victim 'in a neutral position within the criminal justice process'. The neutral duty of intermediary is essentially a distinction from the victim's attorney as the advocate of profits. Therefore, in this study, I will compare and analyze the similarities and differences between the two systems, and I would like to make some legislative proposals for the establishment and development of the intermediary system.