공정한 형사재판을 받을 권리와 국민참여재판 판결의 이유 제시 -유럽인권재판소 대재판부의 Taxquet v. Belgium 판결의 시사점을 중심으로

Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by and independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in the determination of any criminal charge against him. One long-standing jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is that a right to a reason-giving judgement is ensured by this provision. As many of European countries adopting jury trial does not require either judge or jury to give reasons for their judgement, some commentators argued that these practices contradict with the jurisprudence of the ECHR mentioned above. While the Grand Chamber of the ECHR denied the judgement of the 2nd Cham ber that the lack of reason-giving itself violates Article 6(1), it held that there shall be a sufficient safeguard to the defendant counterbalancing the lack of reason-giving, which enables the defendant to understand why he is convicted as well as prevents the risk of arbitrary judgement. Treating the right to a reasoned judgement as a fundamental human right follows from the basic principle of rule of law that individuals shall be protected from arbitrary governmental powers. Therefore, the implication of the jurisprudence of ECHR is also valid in the context of Korean criminal procedure. The fact that people participate in criminal trials itself cannot deprive defendants of this fundamental right. Rather, the democratic legitimacy of the criminal trial is enhanced only by reason-giving which transparently shows how the common-sense of people is reflected in the final judgement of the court. In this light, this article tried to show that it cannot be justified to omit writing essential reason of judgements in citizen participatory trials where the judge agreed to the verdict of jurors.