This study overviews mediation in criminal justice system within the scope necessary for discussing strategies for enhancing mediation in criminal cases. Institutionalized criminal mediation is a mediation procedure that embodies the ideology of restorative criminal justice, that is, an mediator facilitates dispute resolution process between the offender and the victim and help them to arrive at a solution that could substantially recover the damage suffered by the crime victim. In Korea, the number of application for mediation in criminal cases had steadily increased, but it has come to a standstill since 2016. The criminal mediation procedure is governed by Crime Victim Protection Act, Enforcement Decree Of The Crime Victim Protection Act operates in accordance with the Victim Protection Act, Operating Guidance of Mediation in Criminal Cases of established regulations of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and operational guidelines for criminal mediation committees set by the heads of regional prosecution offices. Upon consent of the parties involved, criminal mediation process is initiated and the punishment may be reduced based on content of the agreement that the partied reached even an offense subject to complaint or an offence unpunishable over objection.

  Restorative policing, referring to restorative justice delivered at the level of police, is the process that the police facilitates communication between parties and aids them to reach an agreement and then reflects the outcomes of mediation in the criminal case handling procedures of the police. Subsequently, the outcomes of mediation are integrated into the criminal case handling procedures of the police. Mediation at the police level enhances the substantial realization of restorative justice by enabling the resolution of disputes before formal criminal proceedings initiate.

  The restorative justice at the court level includes criminal agreements, compensation orders in criminal proceedings, and criminal litigation procedures for civil disputes. Civil mediation is also similar to criminal mediation in that it is an alternative dispute resolution system that promotes negotiation between parties through the mediation of a third party and ultimately seeks to end the dispute through agreement. In particular, for handling related cases, agreement in criminal cases are considered as important elements of civil mediation, in other words, criminal mediation is carried out during civil trial procedures. In the same context, despite the ideology of restorative justice, problem-solving, agreementoriented criminal mediation, which accounts for the majority of criminal mediation in reality, could be viewed as a distinctive form of civil mediation addressing criminal illegality.

  Considering various forms of mediation in criminal cases, this study scrutinized the prerequisites for institutionalizing criminal mediation as proposed by prior research. Then, it offered suggestions for enhancing the criminal mediation system. Within the framework of ideal restorative justice, the study examined the practical implementation of improvement measures aimed at fostering humanistic and communication-centered criminal mediation. Where such measures were not employed, the study looked into the reasons of non-implementation.

  This study further examined the procedural aspects and outcomes of criminal mediation by considering the viewpoints of diverse stakeholders involved in the process. To comprehensively analyze current criminal mediation, the study selected criminal mediators, practitioners, prosecutors, and lawyers as survey participants. Both focus group interviews (FGI) and in-depth interviews were conducted with these stakeholders to gain insights from their respective perspectives.

  In the past, criminal mediation typically involved face-to-face communication aimed at resolving conflicts between parties. However, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, criminal mediation is now commonly conducted remotely, by using phones or other remote contact devices. This study found that over 70% of criminal mediation is conducted remotely and preferences for remote criminal mediation are varied among practitioners and members of the mediation committee.

  One of the primary challenges highlighted by mediators in criminal mediation is the insufficient understanding of the mediation process by the participating parties. Consequently, it appears essential for the entity referring the case to mediation to take a more proactive role in explaining the purpose and objectives of criminal mediation to all involved parties. Although the criminal mediation program is grounded in restorative justice principles, serving as an alternative to the traditional criminal justice system, it has not consistently realized the fundamental goals of restorative justice ideology. Despite its initial intention of achieving forgiveness and reconciliation through communication, the practical implementation often revolves around the victim proposing a compensation amount, leading to both parties reaching an agreement on the amount of compensation. In the current context, the predominant focus of criminal mediation appears to be on 'monetary compensation.'

  In reality, stakeholders tend to participate in the criminal mediation process without actively seeking autonomous conflict resolution. Consequently, the actual practice of criminal mediation has evolved into a platform primarily centered around coordinating and reaching agreements on monetary compensation, rather than serving as a means to autonomously address and resolve underlying issues through meaningful discourse.

  What is most needed for substantive improvements in criminal mediation are time and financial resources. Currently, the average duration of criminal mediation is only 30 minutes, with mediators typically receiving an allowance of 70,000 won for handling four cases within a two-hour timeframe. To enhance the quality of criminal mediation, there is a need to raise the allowances provided to mediators and allocate sufficient time for the mediation process.

  Another challenge in criminal mediation is the insufficient expertise of the mediators. Typically, local prominent individuals or seniors serve as criminal mediators, learning the mediation procedures through observation without undergoing specific training or education. In fact, education or training for criminal mediation is hardly provided to mediators. Both criminal mediators and legal professionals, including prosecutors and lawyers, unanimously agree that improving the role and treatment of criminal mediators is essential for enhancing the overall quality of criminal mediation.

  Examining the practical aspects of criminal mediation, this study proposes recommendations to enhance the criminal mediation system, focusing on the identified needs for extended mediation time and professional training for mediators. The study categorizes the criminal mediation system into two types: consensus-centered criminal mediation, aligned with prent practical approaches to address issues, and humanistic communicate-centered criminal mediation, aimed at embodying the ideals of restorative justice ideology. Suggestions to improve the two types of criminal mediation are outlined as follows.

1. for consensus-centered criminal mediation

  Presently, criminal mediation primarily operates as a consensus-centered model with the goal of resolving conflicts between parties. Despite various proposed improvement measures to align with the ideals of restorative justice, these measures have not yet been taken due to realistic constraints. Therefore it is needed to formally institutionalize a problem-solving, consensus-oriented criminal mediation model that prioritizes the recovery of victims' damages. This model should acknowledge the inherent complexities of human behavior and the limitations of the civil damage compensation system. It may serves as a pragmatic approach to realizing the principles of restorative justice by helping victims in recovering from tangible harm. It is particularly relevant in the Korean criminal justice system, where plea bargains are not recognized, and the traditional principle of responsibility becomes limitations on agreements.

  1.1. Expanding the scope of applicable cases -

  From the perspective of institutionalizing the practice of informal criminal settlement, virtually all cases might be eligible for criminal settlement. However, for felony cases, it may be challenging to reach an agreement, particularly in cases where the required monetary compensation that the offender should pay to the victim is disproportionate to the benefits the offender might derive from criminal proceedings. Consequently, cases with unclear facts should be excluded from consideration for criminal settlement.

  1.2. Examining the possibility of expanding ex officio intervention -

  Like civil mediation, ex officio intervention by criminal justice agencies could be expanded. If law enforcement agencies encourage the parties involved to take part in the mediation process, furnish legal information to both parties, and actively encourage consensus, their intervention could prove beneficial in aiding the victim's recovery of damages.

  Given that the accurate determination of damages through mediation and ensuring its enforcement are crucial for the tangible recovery of the victim's losses, it becomes imperative to enhance the legal expertise of mediators. A potential solution is to contemplate the appointment of a lawyer as a full-time mediator to contribute to the requisite legal proficiency in the mediation process.

  1.3. Expansion of criminal mediation to the trial stage and integration it with civil mediation -

  Considering the goal of mediation in dispute resolution, the distinction between civil and criminal matters is blurred. Criminal disputes are already being concurrently addressed through civil mediation procedures. If legislation is enacted to introduce criminal mediation at the trial stage, it could facilitate legal validation within the framework of the responsibility principle by having a judge confirm the outcomes of the agreement. Problem-solving, agreement-oriented criminal mediation could offer a pathway to simultaneously resolve both criminal and civil disputes.

2. for humanistic communicate-centered criminal mediation

  The constraints of reality should not be a reason to forsake ideals. Even in the face of limitations within current criminal and civil judicial procedures, it is both justifiable and desirable to strive for the ideal principles of restorative justice, especially when implementing criminal mediation, even if it can only be achieved to a limited extent.

  2.1. Narrowing the Scope of Target Cases -

  To institutionalize restorative justice, it is crucial to thoughtfully select cases where the principles of restorative justice are applicable, allowing for the effective implementation of humanistic communication-centered criminal mediation procedures. Given the substantial resources required for activating such mediation processes within the criminal justice system, a strategic approach involves selectively choosing cases and minimizing the overall scope of those subjected to criminal mediation.

  2.2. Ensuring the Autonomy of the Parties -

  To ensure the sincerity of the offender's apology and the victim's forgiveness, it is required to guarantee the autonomy of both parties in resolving conflicts through criminal mediation. To achieve this, the establishment and operation of an independent criminal mediation center are highly desirable.

  2.3. Implementation of Procedures to Facilitate Communication Between the Offender and the Victim -

  Restorative justice would be realized only when parties fully exchange their thoughts regarding the offense and resulting harm. For criminal mediation, it is necessary to make preliminary mediation mandated, to secure two or more mediation sessions along with ample mediation time, and to foster effective communication between the offender and the victim.

  2.4. Promoting mediators’ communication and reconciliation ability -

  Mediators should be equipped with the necessary skills to foster communication and reconciliation between conflicting parties. To attract individuals meeting the fundamental requirements for mediators, it is crucial to increase their allowances.

  2.5. Integrating Restorative Policing into Criminal Mediation -

  Conflicts between parties often escalate at different stages of criminal proceedings. Early efforts by the offender and the victim to resolve conflicts can lead to more favorable outcomes.