earticle

영어

In the South Korean constitution it states, “All citizens shall have the right to trial in conformity with the Act” (Constitution Article 27 - 1) and “All citizens shall have the right to a speedy trial. The accused shall have the right to a public trial without delay in the absence of justifiable reasons to the contrary.” (Constitution Article 27 – 3) It also stipulates, “The accused shall be presumed innocent until a judgment of guilt has been pronounced” (Constitution Article 27- 4) and “A victim of a crime shall be entitled to make a statement during the proceedings of the trial of the case involved as under the conditions prescribed by the Act.” (Constitution Article 27 – 5) As above, the constitution prescribes the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right of the accused. The fundamental principle of a speedy trial is to protect the rights of the accused, however at the same time based upon public interest via finding of substantial truth, judicial economy, securing public trust in trial and achieving purpose of punishment. The Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that the fundamental principle of a speedy trial is to protect the basic rights of the accused, however, it can be considered to have a dual nature due to its impact on public interest via finding of substantial truth, judicial economy, securing public trust in trial and achieving purpose of punishment thus it has a pivotal role as a fundamental right in the criminal justice system. Despite speedy trials being the fundamental constitutional principle that ensures basic rights of the public and efficiency of the criminal judicature, traditionally the issues regarding delays in litigations and its associated side effects in the South Korean criminal trials have been raised. In the judicial reform started in 2004, speedy trials were raised a major agenda and the revised Criminal Procedure Bill submitted by the government in 2006 implemented a ‘fast track procedure’ to increase efficiency of criminal proceedings. However the ‘fast track procedure’ included in this bill failed to be legislated. In reality a large number of cases need to be handled with limited jurisdictional resources. Therefore application of the choice and concentration principle is necessary to process minor cases with summary proceedings and complex/major cases through thorough process of trial and provide a judgment that coincides with the substantial truth. Application of strategies aimed at prompt proceedings within the current Criminal Procedure Act has led to implementation of the proceedings for summary judgments, summary procedures, and summary trial procedures. This study aims to examine the applications of the proceedings for summary judgments designed to increase efficiency within the existing laws and identify its issues and discuss strategies for improvement.