본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

위치추적 전자장치 부착명령과 불이익변경금지

Court's order imposing Electronic Monitoring and the Rule of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

This article examines a Supreme Court decision on November 11,2010(docket number 2010Do7955). The rule of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration(the rule against the disadvantageous alteration) in Korean criminal procedure code prescribes not to sentence more serious punishment than the punishment sentenced by judgement of the original instance in case of defendant appeal case and appeal case for the criminal defendant. In this case, the originally sentenced punishment was the “imprisonment of upper term 7 years, lower term 5 years” in addition to imposing the sanction of 5-year electronic monitoring(electronic tagging),and the court of appeal imposed the sanction of 20-year electronic monitoring while it reduced the length of imprisonment to “upper term 5years, lower term 3 years”. This Supreme Court decision indicate that the nature of the court order imposing electronic monitoring is a kind of probation, and Supreme Court decided that court of appeal did not break the rule of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration in light of the nature of the electronic monitoring. In this article, I review the monitoring system for sexual criminals,along with overseeing “The Act on attachment of electronic device for position tracking on specific crime offenders”, and then I analyze the Supreme Court decision regarding the rule against the disadvantageous alteration in Korean criminal procedure code. In this article, I argue that it might comprise the disadvantageous alteration if the length of probation(electronic monitoring) was altered essentially too much. Lastly, I examine the Supplementary Provision of “the Act on attachment of electronic device for position tracking on specific crime offenders”, which apply the act to the criminals who committed crimes before the act was amended, is against “The Prohibition of ex post facto law”.

Abstract

This article examines a Supreme Court decision on November 11,2010(docket number 2010Do7955). The rule of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration(the rule against the disadvantageous alteration) in Korean criminal procedure code prescribes not to sentence more serious punishment than the punishment sentenced by judgement of the original instance in case of defendant appeal case and appeal case for the criminal defendant. In this case, the originally sentenced punishment was the “imprisonment of upper term 7 years, lower term 5 years” in addition to imposing the sanction of 5-year electronic monitoring(electronic tagging),and the court of appeal imposed the sanction of 20-year electronic monitoring while it reduced the length of imprisonment to “upper term 5years, lower term 3 years”. This Supreme Court decision indicate that the nature of the court order imposing electronic monitoring is a kind of probation, and Supreme Court decided that court of appeal did not break the rule of prohibition on disadvantageous alteration in light of the nature of the electronic monitoring. In this article, I review the monitoring system for sexual criminals,along with overseeing “The Act on attachment of electronic device for position tracking on specific crime offenders”, and then I analyze the Supreme Court decision regarding the rule against the disadvantageous alteration in Korean criminal procedure code. In this article, I argue that it might comprise the disadvantageous alteration if the length of probation(electronic monitoring) was altered essentially too much. Lastly, I examine the Supplementary Provision of “the Act on attachment of electronic device for position tracking on specific crime offenders”, which apply the act to the criminals who committed crimes before the act was amended, is against “The Prohibition of ex post facto law”.

참고문헌 (10)

  1. 김병운, "불이익변경금지원칙에 있어서 불이익변경의 판단기준-주형과 부가형을 중심으로-", 박영사, 2 (1998)
  2. 김종호, "성폭력범죄자에 대한 법정형 및 위치추적 전자장치 부착명령과 양형에 관한 특별법 규정들의 위헌여부", 대법원판례해설, (80) (2009)
  3. 김혜정, "성폭력범죄자에 대한 전자팔찌 적용가능성에 관한 검토: ‘특정성폭력범죄자에대한위치추적전자장치부착에관한 법률안’을 중심으로", 형사정책연구, 16(3)통권 : 63, pp.239~266 (2005), 한국형사정책연구원
  4. 박영규, "전자감시제도의 도입필요성에 관한 연구", 경기법학논총, (2) (2003)
  5. 서기석, "불이익변경의 판단기준, In 국민과 사법 ; 윤관대법원장 퇴임기념" (1998), 박영사
  6. 우인성, "항소심에서의 불이익변경금지에 관하여", 재판실무 3집, 창원지방법원, ~
  7. 윤영철, "우리나라 전자감시제도에 대한 비판적 소고: 특정 성폭력범죄자에 대한 위치추적 전자장치 부착에 관한 법률을 중심으로", 형사정책연구, 19(3)통권 : 75, pp.201~228 (2008), 한국형사정책연구원
  8. 이재홍, "보호관찰과 형벌불소급의 원", 판례월보, 통권 : 341, pp.22~27 (1999)
  9. 이존걸, "불이익변경 여부의 객관적?구체적 판단기준", 형사법연구, (23), pp.176~197 (2005), 한국형사법학회
  10. 최정학, "전자감시제도의 도입에 관한 연구(특정 성폭력범죄자에 대한 위치 추적 전자장치 부탁에 관한 법률의 비판적 분석)", 한국형사정책학회, ~ (2008)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (19건)