대만 형사소송법상 감정제도의 개혁과 한국 의료감정실무에의 시사점 - 411 - medical criminal cases, and derives implications for Korean law through comparative analysis with Korea's medical appraisal system, the Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Act (MDMAA), and Japan's Medical Treatment and Supervision Act (MTSA) on psychiatric evaluation. Key findings include: (1) the structural dysfunction of Korea's mediation initiation rate, as shown by the fact that it remained below 50% in the cited statistics up to 2015, and its causes; (2) the composition and objectivity concerns of Korea's expert panel (Gamjeongbu) under the MDMAA; (3) conflicts over burden-sharing in the no-fault obstetric compensation fund and the advance payment system; (4) the limitation of the criminal penalty exception clause; and (5) the inapplicability of the current psychiatric evaluation framework for distinguishing criminal responsibility from treatment necessity. Drawing on Japan’s bifurcated psychiatric evaluation model—which distinguishes evaluations of criminal responsibility from evaluations of medical necessity and uses a joint panel of judges and medical professionals—this paper proposes: (i) protecting expert anonymity while safeguarding cross-examination rights; (ii) introducing an AI-based electronic appraisal referral system; (iii) adopting a German-style publicly appointed and sworn expert system; (iv) piloting Japan-style conference appraisal; (v) activating pre-prosecution expert evaluation; and (vi) legally mandating transparency and qualification standards for delegated appraisal (sutak-gamjeong) under the MDMAA.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODExNjY=