예비적 택일적 기재는, 검사의 공소제기를 용이하게 하기 위해서 그리고, 법원에 문제점을 예고하여 심판의 신중을 기하게 하며, 무죄판결을 방지하기 위해 허용되어진다. 그러나 이것이 실무상 빈번하고 활발하게 이용되는 것처럼 보이지 않는다. 이러한 예비적 택일적 기재와 관련하여 형사소송법체계의 통일성을 위한 몇 가지 점들을 지적하고자 한다. 첫째, 현행 형사소송법은 “공소장에는 수개의 범죄사실과 적용되어지는 법 규정을 예비적 또는 택일적으로 기재할 수 있다.”고 규정하고 있는데, 이는 일본 형사소송법 제256조 제5항의 영향을 받은 것으로 보인다. 판례도 “형사소송법 제254조 제5항에 수개의 범죄사실을 예비적 또는 택일적으로 기재할 수 있다.”는 규정을 글자 그대로 해석하여, 전혀 별개의 범죄사실로 경합범이 되는 경우에도 이를 예비적 또는 택일적으로 기소할 수 있다고 하고 있다. 그러나 ⑴ 소인 개념은 1개의 범죄사실을 전제로 한 개념이며, ⑵ 경합범 관계에 있는 수개의 범죄사실 중 일부만이 유죄로 인정되고 나머지는 유죄로 인정하지 않는 경우에는 판결의 주문에 유무죄 판단을 함께 해야 한다는 점 그리고 ⑶ 동일성 개념의 통일적 이해라는 관점에서 볼 때, 예비적 택일적 기재는 공소사실 동일성의 범위 내에서만 인정되는 것이라고 해석함이 타당하다고 본다. 따라서 제254조의 ‘수개의 범죄사실’을 ‘공소장에는 공소사실과 적용법조 및 죄명을 예비적 또는 택일적으로 기재할 수 있다.’로 명문화함이 타당하다고 생각한다. 둘째, 법원이 선순위의 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하지 않고 예비적 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하는 경우에 검사의 상소가 허용되는가와 함께 판결이유에 선순위의 공소사실에 대한 판단이 필요한가 또한 문제가 되어진다. 이 문제는 검사의 상소의 이익의 검토와 함께 판결 이유의 기재를 요구하는 이유와 관련하여 검토되어야 할 것으로 본다. 따라서 상소제도가 단순히 피고인의 불이익을 구제하는 제도가 아닌 법령해석의 통일을 기하기 위한 제도라는 점을 고려하여야 할 것이다. 또한, 판결이유는 불복자료를 제공해 주는 의미도 있으므로, 거기에 불복허용 범위까지 기재해 주어야 한다고 생각한다. 이번 기회에 공소장의 예비적 택일적 기재의 문제가 범죄사실의 택일적 인정을 허용할 수 있는가의 논의로 확대되어지기를 기대해 본다.

A Reserve alternative recording is allowed to make prosecution easier, be more careful about making decision through a previous notice and prevent a decision from being not guilty. But this is not seem to be frequently and actively used in practice. For the unity of the Criminal Procedure Law System I'm going to point out some Problem about a Reserve alternative recording. First, Present the Criminal Procedure Law prescribes that Several facts constituting an offense and an applicable rule can be recorded reservely or alternatively in a bill of complaint. This seems to be affected by the Japanese Criminal Procedure Law article 256 clause 5. A case is taking it's literal meaning of 'article 256 clause 5 in Criminal Procedure Law prescribes that Several facts constituting an offense and an applicable rule can be recorded reservely or alternatively in a bill of complaint' and it can prosecute reservely or alternatively in the case of a concurrent offenses because of a different facts constituting an offense. However (1) the concept of the cause of a lawsuit is preconditioned about one facts constituting an offense, (2) in the case of some has been convicted guilty and the others has been convicted not guilty about several facts constituting an offense which is relatively a concurrent offenses, you have to make a judgment of guilty or not guilty in the text of a decision, and (3) in the view of unity understanding of the identity concept, it is right to understand that a Reserve alternative recording is acceptable only in a range of identity of a charge. Therefore I believe that 'several facts constituting an offense' in article 254 is right to be changed to 'you can reservely or alternatively record the name of a crime, applicable law and a charge in a bill of complaint'. Second, in the case of a court convicting not guilty about a charge of the priority order but convicting guilty about a reserve charge, appeal of a prosecutor can be allowed can be a problem as well as whether you need to record a need of judgement about a charge of priority order. This problem need to be reconsider about the cause of requiring recording reason of judgment along with examination of the gain of prosecutor's appeal. Therefore an appeal system is need to be consider as not just a relief measure for disadvantage of the accused but a measure of unity of a rule analysis. Also the reason of judgment has a meaning of providing a document for denial of one's guilt, I believe that we need to record the permissible range of denial of one's guilt. I hope this will be a good chance to think widely about wether the matter of reserve alternative recording can allow the alternative acceptance of facts constituting an offense.

A Reserve alternative recording is allowed to make prosecution easier, be more careful about making decision through a previous notice and prevent a decision from being not guilty. But this is not seem to be frequently and actively used in practice. For the unity of the Criminal Procedure Law System I'm going to point out some Problem about a Reserve alternative recording. First, Present the Criminal Procedure Law prescribes that Several facts constituting an offense and an applicable rule can be recorded reservely or alternatively in a bill of complaint. This seems to be affected by the Japanese Criminal Procedure Law article 256 clause 5. A case is taking it's literal meaning of 'article 256 clause 5 in Criminal Procedure Law prescribes that Several facts constituting an offense and an applicable rule can be recorded reservely or alternatively in a bill of complaint' and it can prosecute reservely or alternatively in the case of a concurrent offenses because of a different facts constituting an offense. However (1) the concept of the cause of a lawsuit is preconditioned about one facts constituting an offense, (2) in the case of some has been convicted guilty and the others has been convicted not guilty about several facts constituting an offense which is relatively a concurrent offenses, you have to make a judgment of guilty or not guilty in the text of a decision, and (3) in the view of unity understanding of the identity concept, it is right to understand that a Reserve alternative recording is acceptable only in a range of identity of a charge. Therefore I believe that 'several facts constituting an offense' in article 254 is right to be changed to 'you can reservely or alternatively record the name of a crime, applicable law and a charge in a bill of complaint'. Second, in the case of a court convicting not guilty about a charge of the priority order but convicting guilty about a reserve charge, appeal of a prosecutor can be allowed can be a problem as well as whether you need to record a need of judgement about a charge of priority order. This problem need to be reconsider about the cause of requiring recording reason of judgment along with examination of the gain of prosecutor's appeal. Therefore an appeal system is need to be consider as not just a relief measure for disadvantage of the accused but a measure of unity of a rule analysis. Also the reason of judgment has a meaning of providing a document for denial of one's guilt, I believe that we need to record the permissible range of denial of one's guilt. I hope this will be a good chance to think widely about wether the matter of reserve alternative recording can allow the alternative acceptance of facts constituting an offense.

reserve alternative recording, concurrent offenses, the Criminal Procedure Law System, appeal system, several facts constituting an offense.