사후적 경합범에 대한 고찰
Sentencing on Multiple Convictions and Related Problems
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
When a single act constitutes two or more crimes, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed(the Criminal Act §40). But when it comes to sentencing a defendant with multiple convictions at the same trial, the sentence on each conviction shall be merged to the most severe sentence(death, life imprisonment) or the aggravated sentence by one half of the maximum term/amount(determinate imprisonment, deprivation of qualification, suspension of qualification, fine, confiscation), or the sentences for each crime(different penalty) shall be imposed separately(the Criminal Act §37, §38). And when the defendant is adjudicated as committing multiple convictions spilt by an earlier final judgment with imprisonment at the following trial, the sentence on remaining convictions shall be imposed by considering equity with sentencing all convictions at the same trial, and the sentence may be mitigated or exempted(the Criminal Act §37, §39 ①). If amnesty or remittal is granted to any crime of multiple convictions, the sentence on remaining convictions shall be determined de novo(the Criminal Act §39 ③). In the execution of punishment for multiple convictions, the period of sentence already served shall be taken into account(the Criminal Act §39 ④). Recently the supreme court delivered a judgment that the defendant may be benefited by sentencing on multiple convictions only when she or he is adjudicated at the same trial or there is a possibility of adjudicating at the same trial. But when the defendant committed crimes before and after a judgment with imprisonment is finalized, she or he should be sentenced according to the equity and by the discretionary mitigation or exemption because the sentencing on multiple convictions and its execution is based on the principle of pro reo.
Abstract
When a single act constitutes two or more crimes, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed(the Criminal Act §40). But when it comes to sentencing a defendant with multiple convictions at the same trial, the sentence on each conviction shall be merged to the most severe sentence(death, life imprisonment) or the aggravated sentence by one half of the maximum term/amount(determinate imprisonment, deprivation of qualification, suspension of qualification, fine, confiscation), or the sentences for each crime(different penalty) shall be imposed separately(the Criminal Act §37, §38). And when the defendant is adjudicated as committing multiple convictions spilt by an earlier final judgment with imprisonment at the following trial, the sentence on remaining convictions shall be imposed by considering equity with sentencing all convictions at the same trial, and the sentence may be mitigated or exempted(the Criminal Act §37, §39 ①). If amnesty or remittal is granted to any crime of multiple convictions, the sentence on remaining convictions shall be determined de novo(the Criminal Act §39 ③). In the execution of punishment for multiple convictions, the period of sentence already served shall be taken into account(the Criminal Act §39 ④). Recently the supreme court delivered a judgment that the defendant may be benefited by sentencing on multiple convictions only when she or he is adjudicated at the same trial or there is a possibility of adjudicating at the same trial. But when the defendant committed crimes before and after a judgment with imprisonment is finalized, she or he should be sentenced according to the equity and by the discretionary mitigation or exemption because the sentencing on multiple convictions and its execution is based on the principle of pro reo.
참고문헌 (21)
- 김종수, "형법 제39조 제1항에 대한 제문제", 판례연구, 26 (2015), 부산판례연구회
- 김종호, "형법 제37조 후단 경합범에 대한 제39조 제1항의 적용", 대법원판례해설, (78) (2009)
- 김태명, "개정형법상 사후적 경합범의 요건과 처벌", 비교형사법연구, 7(2(2)), pp.1~28 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
- 문채규, "경합범의 일부상소와 관련한 미결구금일수의 통산 방법에 관한 일고찰", 비교형사법연구, 9(2), pp.365~392 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- 문채규, "사후적 경합범의 처단에 관한 형법 제39조의 비교법적 차별성과 그 해석론", 형사법연구, 25(4), pp.103~130 (2013), 한국형사법학회
- 법무부, "형법개정법률안 제안이유서", ~ (1992)
- 신동운, "2010년 분야별 중요판례분석: (8) 형법총칙", 법률신문, ~ (2011)
- 2014, , ~
- 신현주, "형사소송법" (2002), 박영사
- 오영근, "2010년도 형법판례 회고", 형사판례연구, 19, pp.645~682 (2011), 한국형사판례연구회
- 오영근, "2011년도 대법원 형법판례 회고", 형사판례연구, 20, pp.633~658 (2012), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 오영근, "형법 제39조 제1항의 의미", 한국고시, ~ (2008)
- 이경열, "개정형법 제39조 적용상의 문제", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.321~354 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 이경열, "사후적 경합범에 대한 형의 집행과 남은 문제점", 비교형사법연구, 8(2), pp.319~340 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이기헌, "경합범과 상상적 경합", 형사판례연구, 7 (1999)
- 이천현, "형법 제39조 제1항의 의미", 형사판례연구, 17, pp.94~117 (2009), 한국형사판례연구회
- 정준섭, "사후적 경합범과 법원의 양형재량권", 형사법연구, 22(3), pp.297~322 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 조자룡, "개정형법 제39조 해석에 관한 소고", 법률신문, ~ (2005)
- 최병각, "상습범과 공소권행사", 형사법연구, (17), pp.211~236 (2002), 한국형사법학회
- 최병각, "양형의 과정과 통제", 형사정책연구, 11(3) (2000)
- 최병각, "형법개정에 따른 경합범의 양형", 형사판례연구, 13 (2005)
