본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

특별법상 추징의 법적 성격

0

조회

0

다운로드

11

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

As crimes generating huge sum of benefit such as organized crimes, narcotic crimes, and pornography related crimes have been increasing, criminal special act intends to make a redemption for the benefits from criminal acts by the provisions of forfeit or additional collection. Generally, forfeit based on criminal law is characterized as security measure in that it prevents from keeping unlawful benefits by depriving criminals of profit from the wrongful acts. Therefore,when suspended sentence is added to the primary sentence, suspended sentence can be imposed to the additional collection. However, it is not available if it is not added to the primary sentence. Independent appeal on the additional collection is also impossible if there is no appeal for the final judgement. On the contrary, the additional collection from Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc, Customs Act, and Act on aggravated punishment, etc. of specific economic crimes is characterized as a punishment based on the fact of crime. However, in the targeted case, it is questionable that special laws consider the additional collection as punishment. Punitive additional collection is unfavorable to the offender because it can be imposed even though there is no actual benefit from the wrongful acts. Moreover, it is not reasonable to impose not only jointed additional collection based on civil law but also punishment. It is contradictory to the responsibility principle that criminal law calls for and the way of weighing of an offense. Additional collection to a person who simply transport or keep some goods, not to the person who obtain the goods, is not appropriate to the responsibility principle of criminal law. In this respect, the scope of the additional collection needs to be narrowed and it seems to be more reasonable to use the concept of deprivation of benefits from criminal acts.

Abstract

As crimes generating huge sum of benefit such as organized crimes, narcotic crimes, and pornography related crimes have been increasing, criminal special act intends to make a redemption for the benefits from criminal acts by the provisions of forfeit or additional collection. Generally, forfeit based on criminal law is characterized as security measure in that it prevents from keeping unlawful benefits by depriving criminals of profit from the wrongful acts. Therefore,when suspended sentence is added to the primary sentence, suspended sentence can be imposed to the additional collection. However, it is not available if it is not added to the primary sentence. Independent appeal on the additional collection is also impossible if there is no appeal for the final judgement. On the contrary, the additional collection from Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc, Customs Act, and Act on aggravated punishment, etc. of specific economic crimes is characterized as a punishment based on the fact of crime. However, in the targeted case, it is questionable that special laws consider the additional collection as punishment. Punitive additional collection is unfavorable to the offender because it can be imposed even though there is no actual benefit from the wrongful acts. Moreover, it is not reasonable to impose not only jointed additional collection based on civil law but also punishment. It is contradictory to the responsibility principle that criminal law calls for and the way of weighing of an offense. Additional collection to a person who simply transport or keep some goods, not to the person who obtain the goods, is not appropriate to the responsibility principle of criminal law. In this respect, the scope of the additional collection needs to be narrowed and it seems to be more reasonable to use the concept of deprivation of benefits from criminal acts.

참고문헌 (37)

  1. 김성돈, "형법총론" (2009), SKKUP
  2. 김일수, "새로쓴 형법총론" (2006), 박영사
  3. 박미숙, "추징금징수의 실효성 확보를 위한 법제도 정비방안" (2008), 형사정책연구원
  4. 박미숙, "독립제재로서 범죄수익몰수제도" (2003), 형사정책연구원
  5. 박상기, "형법총론" (2009), 박영사
  6. 법무부, "추징금징수 실효성 확보방안 공청회 자료집" (2007)
  7. 사법연수원, "형사재판실무Ⅰ", ~ (1999)
  8. 손동권, "형법총론" (2005), 율곡출판사
  9. 손해목, "형법총론" (1996), 법문사
  10. 신동운, "형사소송법" (2008), 법문사
  11. 오영근, "형법총론" (2009), 박영사
  12. 유기천, "형법학:총론강의" (1989), 일조각
  13. 이재상, "형법총론" (2008), 박영사
  14. 이형국, "형법총론" (2007), 법문사
  15. 정성근, "형법총론" (2008), 삼지원
  16. 정영석, "형법총론" (1994), 법문사
  17. 진계호, "형법총론" (2007), 대왕사
  18. 황산덕, "형법총론" (1992), 방문사
  19. 김기정, "특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제13조 소정의 몰수, 추징의 성격 및 몰수, 추징부분에 관한 상고가 이유 있어 파기하는 경우 파기의 범위. in: 대법원판례해설 제34호" (2000)
  20. 김대휘, "징벌적 추징에 관하여", 형사판례연구, (8) (2000)
  21. 김형식, "「마약류관리에 관한 법률」의 추징에 대한 몇 가지 고찰", 재판실무연구, 3 (2006)
  22. 류연만, "“형사항소심의 심판범위와 관련된 몇 가지 문제: 판례를 중심으로”, 전주지방법원 판례연구", ~ (1999)
  23. 박재필, "몰수·추징부분만의 단독상소의 문제점. in: 형사재판의 제문제 제3권" (2000), 박영사
  24. 서보학, "외국환관리법상 몰수·추징의 법적 성격과 추징방법", 저스티스, 32(2) (1999)
  25. 서정걸, "몰수·추징의 부가성의 의미 및 그 예외", 형사판례연구, (2) (1996)
  26. 서종혁, "몰수·추징에 관한 몇 가지 문제", 공군법률논집, 4 (2000)
  27. 송희진, "일부상소에 있어서 상소심의 심판범위와 미결구금일수의 법정통산 여부 - 대판 2002. 6. 20, 2002 도 807을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 12(2), pp.191~213 (2002), 법학연구원
  28. 신영호, "몰수의 법적 성격에 대하여", 부산대학교 법학연구, 41(1) (2000)
  29. 심준보, "몰수·추징과 불이익변경금지의 원칙. in: 대법원판례해설 제59호" (2006)
  30. 우인성, "항소심에서의 불이익변경금지에 관하여", 재판실무, 3 (2005)
  31. 윤진수, "1. 범죄의 증명이 없거나 공소시효가 완성된 경우에 추징을 할 수 있는지 여부, 2. 원심판결중 추징부분만을 파기자판할 수 있는지 여부. in: 대법원판례해설 제18호" (1993)
  32. 원혜욱, "범죄소득의 추징", 비교형사법연구, 7(2(2)), pp.203~226 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
  33. 이민걸, "경합범에 있어서의 일부상소의 허용범위", 형사판례연구, (1) (1993)
  34. 이영한, "징벌적 개념의 몰수·추징에 대한 몇 가지 문제. in: 재판실무연구" (2004)
  35. 전주혜, "변호사법 위반죄에 있어서 추징범위", 형사판례연구, (4) (1996)
  36. 조용무, "형사법상의 필요적 몰수, 추징과 실무상의 몇 가지 문제점에 관하여", 사법논집, 11 (1980), 법원행정처
  37. 최진영, "형사법상 필수적 추징에 대하여: 부패범죄에 관한 추징을 중심으로. in: 대전지방법원 실무연구자료 제7 권" (2006)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (18건)