이제까지 배상명령제도의 활성화를 위해 다양한 방안들이 제시되었는데, 대부분 그 취지와 예상되는 효과에 있어 공감할 수 있는 방안들이지만, 독일의 사례에서 교훈을 얻을 수 있듯이 법관들의 태도가 적극적으로 바뀌지 않고는 본질적인 해결책이 될 수 없다. 법관들이 배상명령에 소극적인 이유는 무엇보다 그 절차의 이질성으로 인해 구체적인 사안에서 절차 운용에 대해 불명확한 부분이 많다는 점이다. 이런 문제의식이 우리나라 문헌들에서 완전히 낯선 것은 아니지만, 대부분의 문헌들이 배상명령제도의 장점과 활성화 방안에 대해서 주로 논의하고 구체적인 절차의 진행 모습에 관한 문제에 대해서는 많이 다루지 않는다. 그러나 이 문제를 해결하지 않고서는 아무리 다른 부분을 개선하고 장점을 홍보한다고 하더라도 배상명령제도가 기대만큼 활성화되기는 어렵다. 이 글에서는 그 해결책으로서 첫째로는 다양한 절차적 의문점을 해소하기 위해 구체적인 법규정을 마련하고 이에 관한 이론적, 실천적 해설서가 충분히 준비될 것이 필요하고, 둘째로는 배상명령제도의 취지를 살리면서도 형사소송 법관들의 부담을 줄여주기 위해, 각하사유의 일부를 단순히 삭제하는 것이 아니라, 독일의 청구원인판결(Grundurteil) 제도를 참고하여 “배상의무원인 확인판결”을 하도록 하고 여기에 민사법원에 대한 구속력을 부여하는 법개정이 필요하다는 의견을 밝혔다.
Various measures have been proposed to revitalize the Criminal Victim Compensation Order system, most of which are sympathetic in their intentions and expected effects, but as the German experience has shown, they cannot be implemented without an active change in the attitude of judges. The reason for judges' reluctance to order Criminal Victim Compensation is, among other things, the heterogeneity of the procedure, which leaves much to be desired in terms of its operation in specific cases. Although this problem is not completely unfamiliar in the Korean literature, most of the literature mainly discusses the advantages of the Criminal Victim Compensation Order and how to activate it, and does not deal with the issue of how the specific procedure is carried out. However, without solving this problem, it is difficult for this system to be activated as expected, no matter how much we improve other aspects and promote its advantages. As a solution, this article suggests that, first, it is necessary to prepare specific laws and regulations to resolve various procedural questions and to prepare sufficient theoretical and practical commentaries on them, and, second, in order to preserve the purpose of the Criminal Victim Compensation Order system and reduce the burden on judges in criminal proceedings, it is necessary to amend the law to make “a declaratory judgment of cause of action for damages” binding on civil courts by referring to the German “Grundurteil” instead of simply deleting parts of the memorandum of reasons.
Various measures have been proposed to revitalize the Criminal Victim Compensation Order system, most of which are sympathetic in their intentions and expected effects, but as the German experience has shown, they cannot be implemented without an active change in the attitude of judges. The reason for judges' reluctance to order Criminal Victim Compensation is, among other things, the heterogeneity of the procedure, which leaves much to be desired in terms of its operation in specific cases. Although this problem is not completely unfamiliar in the Korean literature, most of the literature mainly discusses the advantages of the Criminal Victim Compensation Order and how to activate it, and does not deal with the issue of how the specific procedure is carried out. However, without solving this problem, it is difficult for this system to be activated as expected, no matter how much we improve other aspects and promote its advantages. As a solution, this article suggests that, first, it is necessary to prepare specific laws and regulations to resolve various procedural questions and to prepare sufficient theoretical and practical commentaries on them, and, second, in order to preserve the purpose of the Criminal Victim Compensation Order system and reduce the burden on judges in criminal proceedings, it is necessary to amend the law to make “a declaratory judgment of cause of action for damages” binding on civil courts by referring to the German “Grundurteil” instead of simply deleting parts of the memorandum of reasons.