본문 바로가기
KERD
논문

구속요소의 계량화를 통한 구속기준 정립

The Establishment of the Detention Standard by Weighing of Detention Element

1

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The warrant system enables judges to control the law enforcement agencies' abuse of arrest and detention and ensures civil liberties from the harmful effect in restriction of human body. In order to guarantee the freedom of citizens, the confrontation of prosecutors and courts about warrant may be desirable. But, because the reason of detention is unclear and abstract, ordinary people cannot easily predict whether or not to be in detention. Also, the conflict have sharply arisen between prosecutors and courts about the rejection of detention warrant. To solve the conflict,there are demands to introduce warrant appeal system that prosecutors appeal to courts' rejection of warrant. In the warrant appeal system, the detention standard will be established by the accumulated cases through warrant appeal trial. However,even if court do not make specific decisions and be consistent with uncertain judgments in the warrant appeal trial, the introduction of this system can be meaningless. This could be an intrinsic vulnerability of the warrant appeal system that requires a judgment of court. Therefore, the important thing in the warrant appeal trial is the detention standard that courts will be based on to make a specific decision. The detention standard includes whether to examine and how to evaluate individual detention elements that determine the reason for detention. Particularly, in order to determine specifically, I want to adopt the method that quantifies and weighs individual detention elements. If the detention elements be quantified and weighed, people can understand the detention standard and the conflicts between prosecutors and courts will be resolved to promote the efficiency of their works. By the quantifying of detention elements, judicial distrust can be eliminated and sentencing standards can be complimented. How to quantify detention elements includes:First, detention elements to be quantified should be selected. And there are to list individual detention elements simply and to give a score to each element. How to list individual detention elements simply is the way that the grounds for examining the reason of detention can be inferred from the detention elements displayed in detention warrant. But, this way is not only different than the current system that detention elements are just resources to determine the reason of detention and left entirely to the judge whether to determine. Therefore, the way to give a score to each detention element is better than the way to list individual detention elements simply. In the way to give a score to each detention element, there are to give the same score to each and to give different scores. The former is the way that gives the same score to individual detention element and determines whether to be put in detention or not when their score is more than a certain score. But, because the importance of individual detention elements is different in determining the reason of detention, it is necessary to explain that the individual detention elements be evaluated by the same score. Thus, it is reasonable that the superiority among the individual detention elements be admitted and different scores be given to them. Of course, we should solve the problem that the superiority should be discriminated among the individual detention elements. In principle, indispensable detention is less than certain score and indispensable non-detention is more than. In the middle area of their scores, judges can be allowed to judge discretion on whether to be put in detention or not and must specify the reason for.

Abstract

The warrant system enables judges to control the law enforcement agencies' abuse of arrest and detention and ensures civil liberties from the harmful effect in restriction of human body. In order to guarantee the freedom of citizens, the confrontation of prosecutors and courts about warrant may be desirable. But, because the reason of detention is unclear and abstract, ordinary people cannot easily predict whether or not to be in detention. Also, the conflict have sharply arisen between prosecutors and courts about the rejection of detention warrant. To solve the conflict,there are demands to introduce warrant appeal system that prosecutors appeal to courts' rejection of warrant. In the warrant appeal system, the detention standard will be established by the accumulated cases through warrant appeal trial. However,even if court do not make specific decisions and be consistent with uncertain judgments in the warrant appeal trial, the introduction of this system can be meaningless. This could be an intrinsic vulnerability of the warrant appeal system that requires a judgment of court. Therefore, the important thing in the warrant appeal trial is the detention standard that courts will be based on to make a specific decision. The detention standard includes whether to examine and how to evaluate individual detention elements that determine the reason for detention. Particularly, in order to determine specifically, I want to adopt the method that quantifies and weighs individual detention elements. If the detention elements be quantified and weighed, people can understand the detention standard and the conflicts between prosecutors and courts will be resolved to promote the efficiency of their works. By the quantifying of detention elements, judicial distrust can be eliminated and sentencing standards can be complimented. How to quantify detention elements includes:First, detention elements to be quantified should be selected. And there are to list individual detention elements simply and to give a score to each element. How to list individual detention elements simply is the way that the grounds for examining the reason of detention can be inferred from the detention elements displayed in detention warrant. But, this way is not only different than the current system that detention elements are just resources to determine the reason of detention and left entirely to the judge whether to determine. Therefore, the way to give a score to each detention element is better than the way to list individual detention elements simply. In the way to give a score to each detention element, there are to give the same score to each and to give different scores. The former is the way that gives the same score to individual detention element and determines whether to be put in detention or not when their score is more than a certain score. But, because the importance of individual detention elements is different in determining the reason of detention, it is necessary to explain that the individual detention elements be evaluated by the same score. Thus, it is reasonable that the superiority among the individual detention elements be admitted and different scores be given to them. Of course, we should solve the problem that the superiority should be discriminated among the individual detention elements. In principle, indispensable detention is less than certain score and indispensable non-detention is more than. In the middle area of their scores, judges can be allowed to judge discretion on whether to be put in detention or not and must specify the reason for.

참고문헌 (41)

  1. 배종대, "신형사소송법 제3판" (2011), 홍문사
  2. 법무부, "개정 형사소송법" (2007)
  3. 손동권, "형사소송법 개정신판" (2010), 세창출판사
  4. 송광섭, "형사소송법" (2003), 유스티아누스
  5. 신양균, "신판 형사소송법" (2009), 화산미디어
  6. 안영문, "당신이 판사(재미있는 국민참여재판 이야기)" (2008), 산지니
  7. 이영란, "한국형사소송법(개정판)" (2008), 나남
  8. 이은모, "형사소송법" (2010), 박영사
  9. 이재상, "신형사소송법" (2011), 박영사
  10. 임동규, "형사소송법" (2009), 법문사
  11. 정웅석, "형사소송법" (2007), 대명출판사
  12. 한국형사정책연구원, "21세기 형사사법개혁의 방향과 대국민 법률서비스 개선방안(Ⅳ)- 수사절차상 인권보호와 효율성제고-" (2004)
  13. 강동범, "구속영장재판에 대한 불복 가부", 형사법연구, 21(3), pp.81~104 (2009), 한국형사법학회
  14. 김경수, "영장항고제도 도입 필요성에 관한 연구", 형사정책연구, 21(4), pp.193~220 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
  15. 김병수, "구속기준의 객관화와 구속절차의 투명화", 외법논집, 34(1), pp.183~197 (2010), 법학연구소
  16. 김영종, "위증·무고범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문", 양형기준안 제2차 공청회자료집 (2009), 양형위원회
  17. 김정훈, "구속영장발부 여부에 관한 통계모형", 응용통계연구, 23(6), pp.1225~1234 (2010), 한국통계학회
  18. 김재봉, "개정 형사소송법과 수임판사의 재판에 대한 불복", 형사법연구, 19(4), pp.37~62 (2007), 한국형사법학회
  19. 김현수, "피의자 구속의 합리적 기준에 관한 제언", 인권과 정의, (390), pp.64~81 (2009), 대한변호사협회
  20. 김현철, "살인범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문", 양형위원회, 262~ (2008)
  21. 신현호, "뇌물범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문", 양형위원회, ~ (2008)
  22. 노정환, "한ㆍ중 피의자 인신구속제도에 관한 연구", 법학논총, 17 (2007), 숭실대학교법학연구소
  23. 박병규, "영장재판에 대한 항고", 법조, 56(12), pp.346~389 (2007), 법조협회
  24. 변종필, "구속제도의 이론과 실제", 형사정책연구, 21(2), pp.43~81 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
  25. 신동운, "인신구속제도를 둘러싼 법적용의 왜곡과 그 해결방안", 서울대학교 법학 (1999), 서울대학교 법학연구소
  26. 신의기, "검찰과 법원의 구속영장신청 및 발부기준 차이와 해결방안", 형사법의 신동향, (26), pp.97~146 (2010), 대검찰청
  27. 오영근, "바람직한 양형기준의 방식", 형사정책연구, 20(1), pp.347~370 (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
  28. 이경재, "개정 형사소송법상 인신구속제도에 관한 고찰", 형사법연구, 19(4), pp.3~22 (2007), 한국형사법학회
  29. 이광수, "횡령·배임범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문", 양형위원회, ~ (2009)
  30. 이동희, "한국과 일본의 체포‧구속제도에 대한 비교연구 - 체포‧구속의 법제 및 실무운용을 중심으로 -", 비교형사법연구, 11(1), pp.63~94 (2009), 한국비교형사법학회
  31. 이승준, "영장발부에 있어 구속사유 판단의 문제 - 개정 형사소송법 제70조 제2항을 중심으로 -", 형사정책연구, 19(4), pp.249~280 (2008), 한국형사정책연구원
  32. 이완규, "독일의 구속영장 심사와 우리나라 실무에의 시사점", (7) (2007), 대검찰청 미래기획단
  33. 이종갑, "인신구속에 관한 연구", 법학연구 (2000), 경상대학교 법학연구소
  34. 이주형, "최소 양형기준에 대한 비판적 고찰", 형사법의 신동향, (21) (2009)
  35. 이현정, "양형위원회의 양형기준안에 대한 비판적 고찰", 성균관법학, 21(1), pp.359~388 (2009), 법학연구소
  36. 조국, "영미 체포‧구속제도의 특징과 그 비교법적 함의", 비교형사법연구, 11(1), pp.1~26 (2009), 한국비교형사법학회
  37. 정준섭, "한국의 구속관련 결정례 분석 및 바람직한 구속기준 정립방안", 형사법의 신동향, (30), pp.1~47 (2011), 대검찰청
  38. 조성용, "예방구속 도입의 정당성 여부와 입법론적 대안", 저스티스, (109), pp.230~257 (2009), 한국법학원
  39. 최호진, "양형기준의 합리성 검토와 개선방향", 비교형사법연구, 11(2), pp.81~103 (2009), 한국비교형사법학회
  40. 한상희, "뇌물범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문", 양형위원회, ~ (2008)
  41. 황정근, "구속영장실질심사제도의 개선방안", 형사정책연구, 8(4) (1997)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)