본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

양벌규정의 확대 적용에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 양벌규정을 근거로 부과한 행정처분의 문제점을 중심으로 -

Criticisms against the extended application of the joint penal provision

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

This paper focused on the problems of administrative disposition based on the joint penal provision. According to the overflowing of the penal provisions in the administrative law, many people are being penalized with a variety of sanctions. The purposes of this article were to examine that an administrative organ take an administrative measure carefully, thereby to reduce the conflict between two parties. The joint penalty provision punishes the business proprietor when their employees are determined to have violated the law or committed a crime. This regulation is to secure the effectiveness of the administrative law. However, there are rooms for broad applications in the interpretation of 'liability for offense', 'range of employee', 'punishment on the direct offender', 'job relevancy', etc. Furthermore, the punishment and administrative actions are to be dealt with separately, there have been many cases that the punishment and administrative actions were overlapped. Since the joint penalty provision has been adopted for the purpose of closing the legal loophole for sanctions on the corporation, it is not justified to understand reasons for the extended punishment. Followings are the reasons why administrative disposal based on the joint penalty provision cannot be justified. Firstly, in the Acts, the joint penalty provision is provided not in the chapter of administrative disposal, but in the chapter of punishment. In other words, in terms of the legal system, it is not valid to impose the administrative disposal based on the joint penalty provision related with the punishment. Secondly, in the administrative acts. when the punishment and the administrative punishment are overlapped, the application of the joint penalty provision as a tool of the additional sanctions against the offense, or violation of the law can be criticized as double sanctions. Thirdly, under the law, punishment of suspending license is only applied to the case when the license holder himself or herself violated the laws. Thus, suspending license result from employee's offense is against the principle of self responsibility. Fourthly, it is not fair that individuals are dealt with somehow heavily than the corporate. If it is admitted, in order to avoid the administrative disposal, they will propose of the official procedure on the summary order. therefore, this will result in the meangless summay order. In conclusion, administrative disposition to the business proprietor based on joint penal provision can not be justified.

Abstract

This paper focused on the problems of administrative disposition based on the joint penal provision. According to the overflowing of the penal provisions in the administrative law, many people are being penalized with a variety of sanctions. The purposes of this article were to examine that an administrative organ take an administrative measure carefully, thereby to reduce the conflict between two parties. The joint penalty provision punishes the business proprietor when their employees are determined to have violated the law or committed a crime. This regulation is to secure the effectiveness of the administrative law. However, there are rooms for broad applications in the interpretation of 'liability for offense', 'range of employee', 'punishment on the direct offender', 'job relevancy', etc. Furthermore, the punishment and administrative actions are to be dealt with separately, there have been many cases that the punishment and administrative actions were overlapped. Since the joint penalty provision has been adopted for the purpose of closing the legal loophole for sanctions on the corporation, it is not justified to understand reasons for the extended punishment. Followings are the reasons why administrative disposal based on the joint penalty provision cannot be justified. Firstly, in the Acts, the joint penalty provision is provided not in the chapter of administrative disposal, but in the chapter of punishment. In other words, in terms of the legal system, it is not valid to impose the administrative disposal based on the joint penalty provision related with the punishment. Secondly, in the administrative acts. when the punishment and the administrative punishment are overlapped, the application of the joint penalty provision as a tool of the additional sanctions against the offense, or violation of the law can be criticized as double sanctions. Thirdly, under the law, punishment of suspending license is only applied to the case when the license holder himself or herself violated the laws. Thus, suspending license result from employee's offense is against the principle of self responsibility. Fourthly, it is not fair that individuals are dealt with somehow heavily than the corporate. If it is admitted, in order to avoid the administrative disposal, they will propose of the official procedure on the summary order. therefore, this will result in the meangless summay order. In conclusion, administrative disposition to the business proprietor based on joint penal provision can not be justified.

참고문헌 (26)

  1. 김대휘, "양벌규정의 해석. in: 형사판례연구(10)" (2002), 박영사
  2. 김용섭, "양벌규정의 문제점 및 개선방안", 행정법연구, 17, pp.191~227 (2007), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
  3. 김용석, "구 의료법 제53조 제1항 제6호에 의사면허자격정지사유로 규정된 ‘이 법 또는 이 법의 규정에 의한 명령에 위반한 때’에 의사가 사용주로서 같은 법 제70조의 양벌규정으로 처벌받는 경우가 포함되는지 여부(소극)", 대법원 판례해설, 통(52) (2004), 법원도서관
  4. 김의환, "행정법규 위반에 대한 제재조치 부과의 요건", 대법원판례해설, 통(47) (2004), 법원도서관
  5. 김재봉, "기업에 대한 보호관찰의 도입가능성 검토", 비교형사법연구, 8(2), pp.805~820 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
  6. 김재봉, "양벌규정과 기업처벌의 근거", 법학논총, 24(3), pp.31~48 (2007), 법학연구소
  7. 박기석, "양벌규정의 문제점과 법인범죄의 새로운 구성", 형사정책, 10 (1998), 한국형사정책학회
  8. 박기석, "韓國 行政刑罰의 問題點과 改善方案", 비교형사법연구, 6(2-1), pp.233~246 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
  9. 박기석, "형벌법규의 경합과 그 적용-형법과 행정형법 경합을 중심으로-", 형사판례연구, 8 (2000), 형사판례연구회
  10. 양벌규정의 개선방안에 관한 연구. in: 2008년도 대검찰청 용역과제 연구보고서, "박미숙", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2008)
  11. 손동권, "법인의 범죄능력과 양벌규정", 안암법학, (3) (1995), ,
  12. 신동운, "형법총론" (2008), 법문사
  13. 오영근, "형법총론" (2009), 박영사
  14. 윤동호, "징벌적 민사제재에 관한 연구" (2004), 한국형사정책연구원
  15. 법인범죄에 대한 효율적 제재방안, "이기헌", 형사정책연구원, ~ (1996)
  16. 이용식, "비례성원칙을 통해서 본 형법과 헌법의 관계", 형사법연구, 29(25), pp.27~54 (2006), 한국형사법학회
  17. 이주희, "양벌규정의 개선입법에 관한 고찰", 한양법학, (28), pp.99~120 (2009), 한양법학회
  18. 이천현, "법인의 범죄주체능력과 형사책임", 형사법연구, 22 (2004), 한국형사법학회
  19. 전형배, "산업안전보건법의 양벌규정 개정에 관한 연구 -기업경영진의 형사책임을 중심으로 -", 안암법학, (27), pp.363~396 (2008), 고려대학교 법학연구원
  20. 정동기, "환경오염의 형사법적 규제와 입법론", 검사세미나 연수자료집(Ⅺ) (1992)
  21. 조국, "법인의 형사책임과 양벌규정의 법적 성격", 서울대학교 법학, 48(3), pp.60~76 (2007), 법학연구소
  22. 조명화, "양벌규정과 형사책임 - 개정된 양벌규정의 문제점을 중심으로 -", 법학논총, 23, pp.279~302 (2010), 법학연구소
  23. 조병선, "법인의 형사책임", 법학논집 (1992), 청주대학교 법학연구소
  24. 조병선, "개정양벌규정에서의 기업의 형사책임: 과실추정설에 대한 반론", 형사정책, 21(1), pp.351~370 (2009), 한국형사정책학회
  25. 조병선, "양벌규정의 구조와 행위자의 특정. in: '형법 개정 및 양벌규정 개선' 공청회 자료집" (2008), 법무부
  26. 정성근, "법인의 범죄능력재론. in: 한국형사법학의 새로운 지평", 유일당 오선주교수정년기념논문집 (2001)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (17건)