유럽인권법원의 Taxquet v. Belgium 판결과 유럽 각국 배심재판의 변화 -형사배심 평결의 이유 제시와 관련하여-

This article focuses on the 2010 judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Taxquet v. Belgium, analyzing the relationship between the requirement to provide reasons for jury verdicts in criminal trials and the right to a fair trial. Traditionally, common law countries have maintained the practice of not requiring juries to provide reasons for their verdicts, a custom rooted in protecting the independence and freedom of judgment of jurors. However, the Taxquet judgment highlighted that such a tradition may infringe upon the defendant’s right to defense and to understand the judgment, emphasizing the risk that an unreasoned jury verdict may appear arbitrary. The judgment had a significant impact on the criminal justice systems of several European countries, including Belgium, Spain, Austria, and France. Some countries responded by legally mandating the reasoning of jury verdicts. Spain had already implemented a system requiring reasoned jury verdicts, while Austria maintained a limited and formal approach to written reasons. The United Kingdom and Ireland were deemed to meet the requirements of the Convention without legislative reform, as their systems already included procedural safeguards to ensure the defendant’s understanding of the verdict. This article examines how various European countries responded to the Taxquet judgment and explores the structural characteristics and limitations of South Korea’s lay participation trial system. It proposes potential reforms, such as introducing structured verdict forms, brief reasoning requirements, and greater transparency in the publication of jury decisions, to enhance the understandability and transparency of jury verdicts. Ultimately, the article emphasizes the need to strike a balance between the democratic legitimacy of jury systems and the protection of defendants’ rights.