글로버메뉴 바로가기 본문 바로가기 하단메뉴 바로가기

논문검색은 역시 페이퍼서치

> 경상대학교 법학연구소 > 법학연구 > 22권 3호

형사절차상 신분적 재판권 위반에 대한 고찰 -일반법원의 군인 등에 대한 재판의 효력과 비상상고-

A Study on the Violation of Status Jurisdiction in the Criminal Procedure

박정훈 ( Jung Hun Park )

- 발행기관 : 경상대학교 법학연구소

- 발행년도 : 2014

- 간행물 : 법학연구, 22권 3호

- 페이지 : pp.115-139 ( 총 25 페이지 )


학술발표대회집, 워크숍 자료집 중 1,2 페이지 논문은 ‘요약’만 제공되는 경우가 있으니,

구매 전에 간행물명, 페이지 수 확인 부탁 드립니다.

6,500
논문제목
초록(한국어)
헌법 제110조 및 군사법원법 제2조는 군인 등에 대한 형사재판권은 군사법원에 있음을 명시하고 있다. 하지만 군인 등은 형사처벌을 받게 되면 인사상 불이익을 받게 되므로 일반 형사범죄를 저지른 경우에, 검찰 또는 일반법원에서 자신의 신분을 속이거나 밝히지 않고 처벌을 받는 사례가 종종 있다. 이 경우 군인 등에 대한 민간법원의 재판은 재판권이 흠결된 것으로 판결의 효력이 문제된다. 생각건대 군인 등에 대한 형사재판권은 군사법원이 전속적으로 가진다. 따라서 일반법원이 직권조사사항인 재판권 유무를 간과하고 군인 등에 대하여 재판을 한 경우, 당해 판결은 무효라고 하여야 한다. 그러나 소송경제적 측면과 현실적 어려움 등을 고려하였을 때 재판권 흠결의 판결에 대한 치유여부가 중요한 문제로 대두된다. 살피건대 일반법원이 군인 등에 대하여 재판한 것은 재판권을 흠결한 재판으로, 전체로서의 소송과 관련된 하자로 볼 수 있으며 이는 곧 소송행위의 하자에 해당한다. 그리고 일반법원이 군인 등에 대하여 재판하여 당해 재판이 확정된 경우, 소송절차의 발전에 따라 재판권 흠결의 하자는 치유되었다고 보아야 한다. 한편 재판권이 흠결된 판결은 법령을 위반한 것으로 형사소송법 제441조에 의거 비상상고가 가능한가가 문제된다. 먼저 일반법원이 군인이라는 신분을 오인하고 재판을 한 것, 즉 법령위반의 전제사실을 오인하고 판결하여 당해 재판이 확정된 경우에는 그 판결은 소송법적 사실의 오인에 근거한 판결로서 비상상고가 허용된다고 보아야 한다. 다만 일반법원에서 군인 등이 재판을 받은 것이 군인 등에게 불이익하지는 않으므로 원판결을 파기하고 피고사건에 대하여 다시 판결을 할 필요는 없다. 원판결이 법령에 위반한 부분만을 파기하면 될 것이다. 사실 이와 같은 법리적 논쟁은 쉽게 해결될 수 있다. 즉 경찰 또는 검찰에서 국방부와 협의하여 사건 접수단계에 피의자(피고인)의 신분을 확인할 수 있는 시스템을 구축하게 되면 신분적 재판권 위반에 대한 문제는 발생하지 않게 되기 때문이다. 재판권 유무가 법원의 직권조사사항임을 고려할 때 민간 수사기관에서 군인의 신분을 확인할 수 있는 시스템 구축은 반드시 필요하다고 생각한다.
초록(외국어)
In 110th article in constitutional law and second article of military court act describes that criminal jurisdiction for soldiers belongs to the military court. Therefore, the military court has jurisdiction when soldiers were accused in not only military criminal case but including the general criminal case. However, there are lots of case that soldier deceive or hide their identity while in a general court, because soldier gets personal disadvantage if soldier gets general criminal punishment. In this case, if the soldier``s identity were verified before the judgement, the solider gets transferred into military court. In other words, in 16-2 article of code of criminal legal procedure(case transfer into military court) describes that, the court has right to transfer the case that has been prosecuted into same level military court, if the military court has or will have the jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the act of litigation made before the transfer into military court has no effect after the transfer. But at the same time, the article does not regulate about jurisdiction between general court and military court when general court has made a judgement to the accused(soldier) when is before the transfer into military court, which makes a question to judgement validation, since there is a lack of jurisdiction between military and general court if that case happens. Also, the concerned judgement has violated the second article of military court act(status jurisdiction), which makes a issue that if we can make an exceptional final appeal according to 441th article in code of criminal legal procedure. In my opinion, the criminal jurisdiction for soldiers belong exclusively to the military court. Therefore, the concerned judgement should be nullified if general court overlooked the presence of jurisdiction and made a judgement to a soldier. However, if we consider one``s economical aspect and realistic hardship, the existence of remedy is related to the judgement and the lack of jurisdiction will rise as a important matters. That is, the judgement made by court can be also addressed as an act of litigation, which makes it a defect to the act of litigation and questions that if we can remedy. The judgement made by general court to soldiers can be also considered as a flaw in overall litigation, since the trial has lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, if general court have concluded a judgement to a soldier from a trial, the flaw concerned with lack of jurisdiction has been solved according to development of litigation procedures. In other words, the flaw according to lack of jurisdiction has been remedied, even though the issues concerned with jurisdiction has not been removed yet, since the criminal procedure in the case was normally proceeded, the accused has not claimed about issue of jurisdiction and after all, the judgement was concluded. In other side, the judgement made with lack of jurisdiction has violated the law, which makes it a question that we can make it to a exceptional final appeal according to 441th article in code of criminal legal procedure. This exceptional final appeal needs to be revised in a separate way whether there is a effect from the judgement with lack of jurisdiction or not, since this appeal is brought up by the attorney general and the main focus is to unify the law explanation and application. First, the general court has made a judgement without identifying the status of the accused, which exceptional final appeal needs to approved because the general court has made a erroneous assumption of the facts that the court is violating the law and made a judgement. Even the supreme court mentions that it can be a reason to claim in a exceptional final appeal for soldiers, if general court made a judgement to a soldier, since the general court has no status jurisdiction over soldiers, which the judgement can be considered as illegal. A matter of fact, this juridical debates can be easily solved. Which means that the police or prosecutor``s office can cooperate with each other to establish a system that can identify the status of a accused, so that they can avoid violation about status jurisdiction in a pre-trial level. Since the existence of a jurisdiction is a authority matter for investigation in a trial, the general investigation agency needs to be sure to establish a system that can identify between civilian and soldier.

논문정보
  • - 주제 : 사회과학분야 > 법학
  • - 발행기관 : 경상대학교 법학연구소
  • - 간행물 : 법학연구, 22권 3호
  • - 발행년도 : 2014
  • - 페이지 : pp.115-139 ( 총 25 페이지 )
  • - UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0102-2015-300-000277525
저널정보
  • - 주제 : 사회과학분야 > 법학
  • - 성격 : 학술지
  • - 간기 : 계간
  • - 국내 등재 : KCI 등재
  • - 해외 등재 : -
  • - ISSN : 1975-2784
  • - 수록범위 : 1988–2021
  • - 수록 논문수 : 785