Research
Research Reports
| Title | Expediting Proceedings in Civil and Criminal Trials | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 2024.05.27 | ||
| Files |
 Expediting Proceedings in Civil and Criminal Trials.pdf
|
||
|
Expediting Proceedings in Civil and Criminal Trials
Global metrics indicate that Korea has consistently ranked among the top ten nations worldwide for expeditious legal proceedings since 2015 concerning the speed of trial. Nevertheless, domestic statistics over the past decade reveal that although there has been a marked reduction in the volume of civil and criminal cases filed, there has been an elongation in both the interval from case filing to the first trial date and the average processing time of cases. Furthermore, there has been a sharp increase in the backlog of long-standing unresolved cases, and the distribution index of unresolved cases has worsened. This issue pervades various judicial arenas, including both panels of judges and single-judge chambers, and also across both the first instance and appellate trials, regardless of civil or criminal litigation. Consequently, this situation has elicited vigorous reproach from the National Assembly and media outlets. The lag in judicial proceedings significantly undermines public confidence in the judiciary and its adjudicators, rendering the prompt analysis of underlying factors and the proposition of swift remedial actions both critical and imperative. The factors contributing to the extension of trial durations are multifaceted, encompassing several external variables: ① The convergence of information and communication technologies with digital innovations across finance, economy, industry, and societal structures since 2010 has catalyzed rapid and intricate transformations. This evolution has led to a consistent upsurge in cases characterized by complex facts or legal entanglements, challenging to resolve through traditional legal principles. ② The legal profession has witnessed a significant expansion, with the number of practitioners soaring from 15,905 in 2013 to 33,162 by March 2023, inversely correlating with a decline in the ratio of cases per lawyer. This surge is paralleled by lawyers uncovering novel case types, adopting competitive and assertive approaches to dispute resolution, and employing diversified litigation tactics, all of which have further compounded the delays. ③ Conversely, the number of judges has seen a marginal increase of 1.13-fold over a decade, from 2,844 judges in 2013 to 3,214 in 2022. ④ The impediments induced by the COVID-19 pandemic have been a universal challenge. Spanning four waves from February 2020 to July 2021, with the cessation of the seven-day quarantine only occurring in June 2023, the pandemic significantly disrupted normal court operations, contributing to procedural delays. The internal dynamics contributing to trial elongation are as follows: ① There has been a notable escalation in the median age of the judiciary, ascending from 39.8 years in 2013 to 44.2 years in 2022. At the same time, the proportion of judges in their fifties increased from 6.4% in 2010 to 22.9% in 2022. Amidst transformations within the judicial system, these more seasoned judges are increasingly assigned to rigorous tasks within single-judge and equal-judge panel chambers rather than fulfilling roles as presiding judges. ② With the unification of the legal profession, the prior systems for the immediate appointment of judges and their apprenticeship training were supplanted by a recruitment model favoring non-judicial practitioners with relevant experience. This shift has precipitated a decrease in the speed and efficiency of case processing. ③ The erstwhile promotion system for high court presiding judges, once celebrated for its facilitation of rapid case throughput, an augmented caseload capacity, and a reduction in backlog, has been discontinued. ④ The judicature has exhibited a deficient deployment of administrative authority aimed at mitigating trial postponements. ⑤ The regularity of personnel transfers and division of work has led to frequent substitutions of judges and discontinuations of hearings, thereby prolonging case management timelines and diminishing throughput. ⑥ The benchmarks for case volumes and sentencing outcomes were recalibrated to lower thresholds (for example, the 3-3-3-0 sentencing framework), predominantly within the civil first instance collegiate panel, resulting in an overall decrease in case processing. ⑦ In both civil and criminal proceedings, the protocols for conducting intensive hearings and timely submissions were insufficiently observed, resulting in a dilution of attention to trials, which in turn occasioned frequent resumption. ⑧ The judiciary's ineffectiveness in managing continuation, postponement, and later designation of dates has contributed to extended durations of litigation. ⑨ In both a civil trial on the merits and a criminal trial, the absence or malfunctioning of accelerated processes was evident, alongside instances of deliberate trial delays exploited through the manipulation of limitations on the duration of detention in criminal cases. Strategies to mitigate trial delays and accelerate legal proceedings encompass the following measures: ① Augment the number of judges and law clerks. Although the engagement of law clerks serves as a strategic countermeasure to the senescence of the judges and the growing intricacy of legal disputes, an extension of judicial tenure and an enhancement of the treatment of judges are also required. ② The frequency of personnel transfers and alterations in the division of work should be minimized, necessitating the implementation of a mechanism for appointing judges based on geographical areas or the activation of a regional working system. To adhere as closely as possible to the principle of maintaining a single division of work per court, it is imperative that chief judges practically exercise their directive powers to allocate responsibilities. ③ The specialization of judges in civil and criminal proceedings can significantly expedite legal processes. Judges possessing specialized knowledge should be systematically assigned to dedicated trial divisions over extended periods. ④ There is a pressing need for the explicit articulation of the specific purviews, methodologies, impacts, and constraints of judicial administrative powers, enabling chief judges to aptly wield such authorities to forestall procedural delays. Moreover, the appointment of a chief judge who possesses a robust determination and capability to address these delays is essential. ⑤ Establishing benchmark durations for case processing serves as a critical goalpost and standard for judges' case management. Nonetheless, an accurate assessment of judges' actual caseload is deemed crucial. This entails the quantification of time spent within and outside the courtroom, broken down by individual cases and procedural steps, through the use of time-tracking methods. The formulation of these standard durations for case processing is instrumental in facilitating swift and apt case management, laying a foundation for the justified augmentation of the number of judges, equitable resource allocation within the judiciary, and furnishing an objective metric for performance assessment and the efficacious application of judicial administrative authority. ⑥ Virtual hearings represent virtually the sole strategy to circumvent the procedural stagnations occasioned by crises akin to the COVID-19 pandemic. Concurrently, they emerge as a formidable solution to eradicate trial bottlenecks, thereby facilitating expedited proceedings. Presently witnessing an accelerated adoption rate, the introduction of refinements and auxiliary functionalities to this modality would significantly amplify the speed, efficiency, and confidence of judicial processes. ⑦ Both the Civil and Criminal Procedure Acts mandate the consolidation of trial proceedings. Once initiated, the swift culmination of these proceedings stands as a pivotal mechanism for achieving expedited legal adjudications and mitigating the implications of an aging judiciary. In civil litigation, the scheduling of a pretrial conference is crucial for ensuring focused deliberation. The practice of conducting these pretrial conferences via virtual hearings from the judge's chambers should be institutionalized within this framework to designate a date of trial and set deadlines for the submission of arguments and applications for evidence, and once the trial has commenced, the judge should conduct a concentrated and comprehensive oral argument and examination of evidence, while proactively rendering the party failing to meet such periods lose their right to do so. Similarly, the Criminal Procedure Act endorses strategies to avert procedural delays, including the effect of loss of rights, particularly for tardy applications for evidence. Precise guidelines for the continuation, postponement, and later designation of dates must be delineated and adhered to. In addressing trial extensions due to expert appraisals, the adoption of virtual sessions for presenting expert testimony, reasonable appraisal fees, the allocation of specialized appraisal personnel, and the creation of dedicated appraisal centers warrant consideration. ⑧ The pretrial discovery system, similar to the discovery process in the United States, effectively streamlines the trial process. The institution of interrogatories, deposition recordings, and mandates for the production of documents and additional materials—including electronic data—when appropriately utilized during the pretrial phase, can greatly improve the focus of the trial process. ⑨ The allocation of cases designated for sentencing ought to be a collective decision within the chamber, eschewing the prescriptive 3-3-3-0 sentencing formula. A reassessment of the feasible caseload is imperative, demanding an accurate measurement of the judges’ actual workload. While the strategy of “condensing the essence and articulating judgments succinctly” possesses inherent constraints, adopting an approach of “streamlining judgments through selective citation and omission” is advisable to diminish the time expended in writing judgments. ⑩ The establishment of a refined evaluation system, accompanied by the assignment of corresponding benefits and drawbacks, is imperative. This research assessed the adverse outcomes potentially arising from the use of a promotion mechanism as an incentive structure and scrutinized the essential factors for developing a new promotional framework. This analysis, predicated on a foundation of fair work evaluation, addressed strategies for prioritizing personnel transfers and division of work, the targeted distribution of performance-based compensation, and the nomination of chief judges as potential benefits. In contrast, this research critically examined the implications of continuous appointments and the intensified vetting process for mid-career judicial appointments as prospective disadvantages. ⑪ Concerning the augmentation of judicial efficiency through artificial intelligence, this research has delineated potential applications within the judiciary's operational framework and conducted a thorough review of how AI can be incrementally integrated into judges' duties over short, medium, and long-term horizons. Immediate development in these identified areas should commence upon the allocation of adequate financial resources. Additional recommendations for enhancements include: ⓐ Expanding the number of chambers, which could involve transitioning collegiate panels to single-judge formats, ⓑ Recruiting skilled new judges, which is a measure critical for expediting legal proceedings, ⓒ Implementing a compensation mechanism for trial delays, ⓓ Enacting a special act aimed at accelerating trial processes, ⓔ Issuing periodic reports on trial expedience, alongside transparent disclosures of unresolved cases by chamber and offering tailored statistical analysis on trial delays and accelerations for interested judges, ⓕ Promoting collaboration within the legal profession to foster swift trial outcomes, ⓖ Granting the right to file a motion to set for a date of trial, ⓗ Enhancing the mechanism for disbursing litigation expenses by those who delay the trial in the case of civil proceedings, ⓘ Instituting streamlined procedures for small claims to accelerate resolution, ⓙ Developing expedited processes for checks and drafts, ⓚ Implementing time-bound proceedings or uncontested trials upon mutual consent of the parties, ⓛ Establishing an internet-based court or online court as an online dispute resolution institution, ⓜ Affording undetained defendants the right to file a motion for set a trial date, ⓝ Lengthening the permissible detention duration under exceptional circumstances for detained defendants, ⓞ Streamlining the reimbursement of litigation expenses by those who make trial protracted in criminal proceedings, ⓟ Introducing simplified trial protocols for cases where the defendant denies allegations, ⓠ Accelerating the criminal trials for minor offenses, ⓡ Increasing the affirmation of first-instance judgments in criminal appeal cases, ⓢ Actively utilizing the dismissal of appeals through judgments without argument proceedings in criminal appellate trials, ⓣ Facilitating the dismissal of indictments or the reduction of sentences in criminal proceedings. The human toll wrought by delays in legal proceedings is substantial. It is crucial that, while preserving the appropriate trial threshold, this research impels the judiciary to implement reforms and improvements aimed at eliminating these delays and ensuring accelerated trials. Each judge must recognize the severity of this issue and dedicate themselves fully to the prompt and proper resolution of the cases for which they are responsible. 
|
|||
Previous  |
Research on the Special Corporation Bankruptcy Procedure |
Next  |
Research on the Current Status and Revitalization of Citizen Participation Trials |
