법정형과 양형기준의 관계에 관한 고찰 - 폭력범죄를 중심으로 -
A Study on the Relationship between Statutory Penalty and Sentencing Guideline - Focused on Violent Crimes -
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In 2007, the Republic of Korea founded its Sentencing Commission by amending the Court Organization Act. Since then, Korea has gradually established the Sentencing Guideline for major crimes to guarantee unity and objectivity of judicial power. In consequence, Korea, a country with substantive criminal law background in the civil law, has now ended up with two different kinds of standards, a ‘statutory penalty’ proposed by legislators and a ‘sentencing guideline’ proposed by the Sentencing Commission. In that sense, it is evident that establishing the normative relationship between these two standards is a prerequisite for drawing up a reasonable Sentencing Guideline. The Sentencing Guideline, which has a normative character, is not a sentence itself but a general standard prepared in advance to decree punishment. Thus, the relationship between statutory penalty and the Sentencing Guideline can be described as that of a general rule and a detailed rule regarding the choice of types and terms of punishment. Distribution of sentencing is definitely an important reference to the establishment of the Sentencing Guideline but it cannot be regarded as a decisive factor which justifies establishment of category ranges. A number of problems can be found when we examine the recently announced Sentencing Guidelines for violent crimes with respect to the relationship of these two standards. First of all, the Sentencing Guideline's classification of offence disregards the legislative decision, which has prescribed additional requirements separately. Secondly, with regard to the choice of sentencing factor, the Sentencing Guideline treats sentencing factors as an element in law and other sentencing factors equally. Thirdly, the Sentencing Guideline treats all sentencing factors equally, while it needs to be pointed out that statutory penalty evaluates the degree of aggravation and mitigation individually. Lastly, it arouses suspicion that the Sentencing Guideline ignores statutory penalty and even the least normative relationship. A case in point which shows this is the fact that the maximum punishment of the sentencing guideline is below the minimum punishment of statutory penalty in some offences. These problems should be resolved by statutory penalty reform by the legislature. The Sentencing Guideline should be carefully crafted in conformity with the civil law nature of and fulfill its role as the ‘statutory penalty’s detailed standard’.
Abstract
In 2007, the Republic of Korea founded its Sentencing Commission by amending the Court Organization Act. Since then, Korea has gradually established the Sentencing Guideline for major crimes to guarantee unity and objectivity of judicial power. In consequence, Korea, a country with substantive criminal law background in the civil law, has now ended up with two different kinds of standards, a ‘statutory penalty’ proposed by legislators and a ‘sentencing guideline’ proposed by the Sentencing Commission. In that sense, it is evident that establishing the normative relationship between these two standards is a prerequisite for drawing up a reasonable Sentencing Guideline. The Sentencing Guideline, which has a normative character, is not a sentence itself but a general standard prepared in advance to decree punishment. Thus, the relationship between statutory penalty and the Sentencing Guideline can be described as that of a general rule and a detailed rule regarding the choice of types and terms of punishment. Distribution of sentencing is definitely an important reference to the establishment of the Sentencing Guideline but it cannot be regarded as a decisive factor which justifies establishment of category ranges. A number of problems can be found when we examine the recently announced Sentencing Guidelines for violent crimes with respect to the relationship of these two standards. First of all, the Sentencing Guideline's classification of offence disregards the legislative decision, which has prescribed additional requirements separately. Secondly, with regard to the choice of sentencing factor, the Sentencing Guideline treats sentencing factors as an element in law and other sentencing factors equally. Thirdly, the Sentencing Guideline treats all sentencing factors equally, while it needs to be pointed out that statutory penalty evaluates the degree of aggravation and mitigation individually. Lastly, it arouses suspicion that the Sentencing Guideline ignores statutory penalty and even the least normative relationship. A case in point which shows this is the fact that the maximum punishment of the sentencing guideline is below the minimum punishment of statutory penalty in some offences. These problems should be resolved by statutory penalty reform by the legislature. The Sentencing Guideline should be carefully crafted in conformity with the civil law nature of and fulfill its role as the ‘statutory penalty’s detailed standard’.
참고문헌 (47)
- 김영환, "양형의 형벌이론적 기초 및 개별적 양형단계에 관한 고찰" (1996), 한국형사정책연구원
- 바람직한 양형기준제와 양형위원회 운영의 방식에 관한 연구, "오영근", 대검찰청, ~ (2010)
- 박상기, "형법총론(제9판)" (2012), 박영사
- 양형기준제와 양형위원회 도입방안 연구, "방희선", 법무부, ~ (2010)
- 외국의 양형기준제 분석, "손철우", 대법원, ~ (2008)
- 이재상, "형법총론, 제7판" (2011), 박영사
- 양형기준제 시행에 따른 양형합리화정책 성과분석 및 평가, "탁희성", 형사정책연구원, ~ (2011)
- Marvin E. Frankel, "Criminal Sentences : Law Without Order" (1973), Hill and Wang
- Sentencing Council, "Assult - Definitive Guideline", National Archives, ~ (2011)
- 권오걸, "영국양형제도의 분석과 국내도입의 문제점 검토", 형사정책연구, 19(4), pp.157~192 (2008), 한국형사정책연구원
- 김슬기, "한국 형법의 법정형에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2010
- 김영환, "양형의 형벌이론적 기초 및 개별적 양형단계에 관한 고찰" (1996), 한국형사정책연구원
- 김현석, "양형기준 시행성과와 향후 과제", 형사정책연구, 21(2), pp.7~41 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
- 김현성, "새로운 양형기준에 도입에 관한 소고", 변호사, 41 (2011)
- 박강우, "대법원 양형기준안과 바람직한 양형개혁의 방향", 저스티스, (114), pp.206~229 (2009), 한국법학원
- 박기석, "형사특별법의 구성요건 및 법정형의 문제점과 정비방안", 법조, 53(11), pp.141~166 (2004), 법조협회
- 박기석, "폭력범죄 규정 정비 방안", 형사법연구, (22) (2004)
- 박상기, "형법상 法益類型과 法定刑에 관한 小考", 형사법연구, 19(3-하), pp.799~810 (2007), 한국형사법학회
- 방희선, "합리적인 양형통제방안 연구 : 재판실무와 제도를 중심으로", 박사, pp.2001
- 방희선, "양형의 본질과 양형기준에 관한 소고", 형사법의 신동향, (34), pp.5~47 (2012), 대검찰청
- 서봉규, "현행 양형기준의 문제점과 개선방안", 홍익법학, 11(2), pp.33~67 (2010), 법학연구소
- 손동권, "양형합리화를 위한 기초로서의 법률상 형가감체계", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.399~420 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 외국의 양형기준제 분석, "손철우", 대법원, ~ (2008)
- 송광섭, "바람직한 양형조사의 주체에 관한 논의사항", 형사법의 신동향, (30), pp.48~98 (2011), 대검찰청
- 승재현, "양형의 규범적 판단 근거와 합리적인 양형기준방안에 관한 연구 : 우리나라 양형위원회의 양형기준에 대한 평가 및 개선 방향을 중심으로", 박사, pp.2009
- 승재현, "우리나라 양형위원회 양형기준모델의 타당성 평가", 법조, 59(1), pp.87~135 (2010), 법조협회
- 승재현, "합리적인 양형을 위한 양형 조사 방안 - 양형 조사 주체 및 소속기관을 중심으로 -", 법조, 59(9), pp.98~151 (2010), 법조협회
- 오경식, "법률적 양형의 기본원리와 방향", 형사법의 신동향, (33), pp.245~284 (2011), 대검찰청
- 이보영, "양형의 법적 성격과 합리화 방안", 형사법연구, 21(4), pp.219~250 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 이인석, "개정형법상 유기징역형의 상한조정에 관한 고찰", 형사법연구, 22(3), pp.33~57 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 이주형, "영·미 양형기준제의 장·단점 분석 및 우리나라 도입시 고려사항", 법조, 57(4), pp.314~373 (2008), 법조협회
- 이천현, "감경제도의 문제점과 개선방안", 형사정책연구, 17(4), pp.759~798 (2006), 한국형사정책연구원
- 이현정, "책임범위이론에 기초한 현행 양형기준의 개선방안", 비교형사법연구, 13(1), pp.21~48 (2011), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이현정, "양형위원회의 양형기준안에 대한 비판적 고찰", 성균관법학, 21(1), pp.359~388 (2009), 법학연구소
- 이호중, "우리나라의 양형기준에 대한 비판적 분석", 형사법연구, 22(1), pp.241~272 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 정철호, "행위자의 범행전후의 태도에 대한 양형관련성", 형사법연구, (19), pp.297~322 (2003), 한국형사법학회
- 조기영, "한국의 양형개혁과 양형심리절차의 개선방안", 동아법학, (44), pp.413~433 (2009), 법학연구소
- 최석윤, "양형에 대한 기초적 이해", 형사정책연구, 8(1) (1997)
- 최호진, "양형기준의 합리성 검토와 개선방향", 비교형사법연구, 11(2), pp.81~103 (2009), 한국비교형사법학회
- 하태훈, "量刑의 合理化 方案", 비교형사법연구, 6(2-1), pp.19~32 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
- 형사특별법의 형법편입방향, 형사법 개정연구 자료집, "허일태", 법무부, ~ (2008)
- Theune, Werner, "Grundsätze und Einzelfragen der Strafzumessung; aus der. Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" (1985), Strafverteidiger
- Horn, Eckhard, "Strafschärfung und Strafmilderung - im Verhältnis wozu?" (1986), Strafverteidiger
- Foth, Eberhard, "Strafschärfung", Strafmilderung - eine noch unerledigte Frage der Strafzumessung, 1985, ~
- 증권․금융, "지식재산권", 폭력, 양형위원회, 2012[DOI]
- 양형기준안에 관한 제6차 공청회(2012. 3. 26) 결과보고서, "양형위원회", ~ (2012)
- 양형기준안에 관한 제2차 공청회(2009. 2. 9.) 결과보고서, "양형위원회", ~ (2009)