점령법원의 유죄판결에 대한 재심

Currently, the Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Korea and some courts face the challenge of reviewing the criminal trial of the U.S. Military Occupation Court. This article aims to suggest a way to overcome the flawed judgment of the U.S. Military Government Court by examining German Court's experience in handling the rulings of the Allied Occupation Court after the end of the occupation regime. Two problems emerge when reviewing trials of American Occupation Courts. The first issue concerns the legal standards and criteria to control the criminal trial of the occupation court. The criteria for examination of the validity of a trial by the occupation court are, above all, principle of legality, due process, and fair trial. All of these principles were specifically reflected in domestic and international law, especially international customary humanitarian law at the time of U.S. military occupation. The second problem is to prove the reason for the retrial that exists in the trial process of the occupation court. If a trial was conducted without a lawyer or interpreter or based on illegal investigation by the police, it could be easily admitted that there was a reason for retrial. However, there is practically no records to prove the reason for this retrial, and few witnesses is available. If such specific reasons for retrial cannot be confirmed, it is necessary to introduce a special retrial for the purpose of normative control based upon classification of types.