본문 바로가기
KERD
논문

대법원 양형기준에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 피고인의 이익에 부합하는 양형기준의 해석을 중심으로 -

Critical Analysis of Korean Sentencing Guidelines - Based on Perspective of Defendant's Rights on Guidelines -

강우예
한국형사법학회 (The Korean Criminal Law Association)|2012.03|형사법연구 (Journal of Criminal Law)|제24권 제1호|pp. 125-154|DOI 10.21795/kcla.2012.24.1.125

0

조회

0

다운로드

8

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

양형기준Sentencing ProcessSentencing GuidelinesSentencing Factor소급적용 금지양형요소양형심리양형기준의 구속력Ex Post FactoBinding Sentencing Guidelines
주제분류법학

초록

Sentencing guidelines should have justifiable purpose and proper means, just like any other legal institutions. In Korea, since 2009 in which the first form of sentencing guidelines took effect, the sentencing guidelines for the crimes of murder,the sexual crimes, the crimes of robbery, the property crimes, the crimes of perjury,the crimes of false charge, the crimes of kidnapping, the crimes of fraud, the crimes of drugs, etc., have been established by Korean Sentencing Committee. Unfortunately,however, there has not been any living debates among korean scholars about what are good forms of sentencing guidelines, the establishment of which has been lead by practitioners, such as judges and prosecutors. In short, Korean sentencing guidelines have been formed, mainly reflecting the opinions of the Korean Supreme Court. First of all, we should analyze the current Korean sentencing guidelines system, to clarify how the legality principle in which legislators hold the exclusive power to tell about what is crime and which level of punishment is proper could reconcile with the current Korean sentencing guidelines. Also, we should reconsider if there is any other alternative means to regulate sentencing area. Also, in the current korean sentencing guidelines, we should think more about the ground on which defendants have opportunities to realize their rights more effectively. The sentencing guidelines is not just the reference book for judges but should be interpreted as an legal institution in which a citizen's liberty should not be deprived of in a arbitrary way. To make it possible, we correctly understand the features of the current Korean sentencing guidelines. Also, this article rely on the debates which happened around American sentencing guidelines. The current korean sentencing guidelines will be so controversial area. Establishing sentencing guidelines means the opportunities of considering unlawfulness and culpability of criminal act in a more details. It is a serious question if the Korean Sentencing Committee has try to look at this aspect. Fundamentally, in the area of sentencing, sentencing factor should not take the form of isolated categories that resemble the elements of a crime. Rather, sentencing guidelines should take the form of providing more discretion. Albert Alschuler has been right at this point. The problems happening in sentencing area should be resolved in a more practical way, rather than with categorization of legal factors.

Abstract

Sentencing guidelines should have justifiable purpose and proper means, just like any other legal institutions. In Korea, since 2009 in which the first form of sentencing guidelines took effect, the sentencing guidelines for the crimes of murder,the sexual crimes, the crimes of robbery, the property crimes, the crimes of perjury,the crimes of false charge, the crimes of kidnapping, the crimes of fraud, the crimes of drugs, etc., have been established by Korean Sentencing Committee. Unfortunately,however, there has not been any living debates among korean scholars about what are good forms of sentencing guidelines, the establishment of which has been lead by practitioners, such as judges and prosecutors. In short, Korean sentencing guidelines have been formed, mainly reflecting the opinions of the Korean Supreme Court. First of all, we should analyze the current Korean sentencing guidelines system, to clarify how the legality principle in which legislators hold the exclusive power to tell about what is crime and which level of punishment is proper could reconcile with the current Korean sentencing guidelines. Also, we should reconsider if there is any other alternative means to regulate sentencing area. Also, in the current korean sentencing guidelines, we should think more about the ground on which defendants have opportunities to realize their rights more effectively. The sentencing guidelines is not just the reference book for judges but should be interpreted as an legal institution in which a citizen's liberty should not be deprived of in a arbitrary way. To make it possible, we correctly understand the features of the current Korean sentencing guidelines. Also, this article rely on the debates which happened around American sentencing guidelines. The current korean sentencing guidelines will be so controversial area. Establishing sentencing guidelines means the opportunities of considering unlawfulness and culpability of criminal act in a more details. It is a serious question if the Korean Sentencing Committee has try to look at this aspect. Fundamentally, in the area of sentencing, sentencing factor should not take the form of isolated categories that resemble the elements of a crime. Rather, sentencing guidelines should take the form of providing more discretion. Albert Alschuler has been right at this point. The problems happening in sentencing area should be resolved in a more practical way, rather than with categorization of legal factors.

참고문헌 (67)

  1. 김일수, "바람직한 양형조사제도 - 기관갈등의 분석과 출구 -" (2010), 세창출판사
  2. 권수진, "형사법 개정연구(Ⅳ): 유예제도의 정비방안, 한국형사정책연구원 연구총서", pp.22~ (2009)
  3. 권오걸, "영국양형제도의 분석과 국내도입의 문제점 검토", 형사정책연구, 19(4), pp.157~192 (2008), 한국형사정책연구원
  4. 김성돈, "미국의 주 양형법개혁과 양형가이드라인시스템 - 메사츄세츠주의 양형가이드라인법안을 중심으로 -", 저스티스, 71, pp.206~234 (2003), 한국법학원
  5. 김현석, "양형기준 시행성과와 향후 과제", 형사정책연구, 21(2), pp.7~41 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
  6. 류전철, "양형결정의 정당화에 관한 고찰", 형사정책연구, 17(4), pp.939~960 (2006), 한국형사정책연구원
  7. 박강우, "대법원 양형기준안과 바람직한 양형개혁의 방향", 저스티스, (114), pp.206~229 (2009), 한국법학원
  8. 박경래, "양형조사제도에 관한 연구: 조사기관을 중심으로" (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
  9. 박용철, "미국의 현대 양형 제도 연구 : Blakey 판례와 Booker 판례를 넘어서", 비교형사법연구, 7(2(2)), pp.291~312 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
  10. 박형관, "미국 주 양형기준제 개관 및 주요 쟁점 검토", 형사법의 신동향, (12) (2008)
  11. 박형관, "영국식 양형기준에의 특징 및 도입가능성에 관한 소고", 형사법의 신동향, (2) (2006)
  12. 서봉규, "현행 양형기준의 문제점과 개선방안", 홍익법학, 11(2), pp.33~67 (2010), 법학연구소
  13. 손동권, "범행비례적 양형론에 관한 연구, In 한국형사정책연구원 연구총서" (2006)
  14. 손철우, "우리나라에 적합한 양형기준제(주제발표문)", 우리나라에 적합한 양형기준제 - 제1차 공개토론회 (2008), 양형위원회
  15. 손철우, "우리나라 양형기준 설정의 주요 쟁점과 과제", 사법, 1(8), pp.93~137 (2009), 사법발전재단
  16. 양문승, "양형의 합리화를 위한 판결전조사제도의 개선방안", 원광법학, 25(1), pp.143~170 (2009), 법학연구소
  17. 이주형, "최초 양형기준에 대한 비판적 고찰", 형사법의 신동향, (21) (2009)
  18. 이주형, "영·미 양형기준제의 장·단점 분석 및 우리나라 도입시 고려사항", 법조, 57(4), pp.314~373 (2008), 법조협회
  19. 이현정, "책임범위이론에 기초한 현행 양형기준의 개선방안", 비교형사법연구, 13(1), pp.21~48 (2011), 한국비교형사법학회
  20. 오영근, "양형의 합리화에 관한 연구" (1993), 한국형사정책연구원
  21. 曺國, "영국의 양형지침 개괄", 저스티스, 73, pp.117~135 (2003), 한국법학원
  22. 조기영, "한국의 양형개혁과 양형심리절차의 개선방안", 동아법학, (44), pp.413~433 (2009), 법학연구소
  23. 최석윤, "양형기준법안에 대한 비판적 검토", 한양법학, (34), pp.417~435 (2011), 한양법학회
  24. 최호진, "양형기준의 합리성 검토와 개선방향", 비교형사법연구, 11(2), pp.81~103 (2009), 한국비교형사법학회
  25. 하태훈, "양형합리화를 위한 양형절차의 도입", 형사정책연구, 17(4), pp.909~938 (2006), 한국형사정책연구원
  26. 베르너 마이호퍼, "법치국가와 인간의 존엄", pp.147~ (1994)
  27. Alschuler, Albert W, "To Sever or Not To Sever?", Why Blakely Requires Action by Congress (2004)
  28. Alschuler, "Monarch, Lackey, or Judge", U. Colo. L. Rev, 64(723) (1993)
  29. Alschuler, "The Failure of Sentencing Guidelines: A Plea for Less Aggregation", U. Chi. L. Rev, 58(901) (1991)
  30. Breyer, Stephen, "The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Key Compromises upon which They Rest", Hofstra L. Rev, 17(1) (1988)
  31. Dillon, James R, "Doubting Demaree: The Application of Ex Post Facto Principles to the United States Sentencing Guidelines after United States v. Booker", W. Va. L. Rev, 110(1033), pp.1089~1095 (2008)
  32. Frankel, Marvin E., "Lawlessness in Setencing", U.Chi. L. Rev, 41(1) (1972)
  33. Frase, Richard S., "State Sentencing Guideline: Still Going Strong", Judicature, 73(173) (1995)
  34. Mullen, Graham C, "Mandatory Guidelines: The Oxymoronic State of Sentencing after United States v. Booker", U. Rich. L.Rev, 41(625) (2007)
  35. Robinson, Paul H., "A Sentencing System for the 21th Century?", Tex. L. Rev, 66(1) (1987)
  36. Robinson, "Three Illusiions", Theoretical Inq. L, 2(287) (2004)
  37. Sith, Kath, "Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts", ~ (1998)
  38. "Apprendi v. New Jersey, 520 U.S. 490", ~ (2000)
  39. "Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296", ~ (2004)
  40. "Evans v. Gerry, 647 F.3d 30, 35 (1st Cir.(N.H.) Jul 22, 2011)", ~ (2011)
  41. "Ferman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 255", ~ (1972)
  42. "Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586", ~ (1978)
  43. "McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183", ~ (1971)
  44. "Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38", ~ (2007)
  45. "Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423", ~ (1987)
  46. "Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584", ~ (2002)
  47. "Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338", ~ (2007)
  48. "United States v. Alafriz, 690 F.Supp. 1303 (S.D.N.Y., 1988)", ~ (1988)
  49. "United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1402-03 (3rd Cir. 1994)", ~ (1994)
  50. "United States v. Brodie, 686 F.Supp. 941", ~ (1988)
  51. "United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220", ~ (2005)
  52. "United States. v. Castillo-Estevez, 597 F.3d 238, 241+ (5th Cir.(Tex.) Feb 09, 2010)", ~ (2010)
  53. "United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 331 (3d Cir. 2006)", ~ (2006)
  54. "United States v. Doyle, 621 F.Supp.2d 345, 348+ (W.D.Va. Jun 24, 2009)", ~ (2009)
  55. "United States v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 79, 795 (7th Cir. 2006)", ~ (2006)
  56. "United States v. Jimenez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2006)", ~ (2006)
  57. "United States v. Kandirakis, 441 F.Supp. 2d 282, 334 (D.Mass. 2006)", ~ (2006)
  58. "United States v. Knight, 606 F.3d 171 (4th Cir.(N.C.) Jun 04, 2010)", ~ (2010)
  59. "United States v. Kussmaul, 987 F.2d 345, 351-52 (6th Cir. 1993)", ~ (1993)
  60. "United States v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 193 (4th Cir.(Va.) May 27, 2010)", ~ (2010)
  61. "United States v. Ortiz, 621 F.3d 82, 86+ (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Sep 01, 2010)", ~ (2010)
  62. "United States v. Pinto, 875 F.2d 143 (7th Cir. (Wis.), 1989)", ~ (1989)
  63. "United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez, 488 F.3d 316, 325 (5th Cir. 2007)", ~ (2007)
  64. "United States v. Turner, 548 F.3d 1094 (D.C.Cir. Dec 05, 2008)", ~ (2008)
  65. "United Sates v. Vizcaino, 870 F.2d 52 (2nd Cir. (N.Y.), 1989)", ~ (1989)
  66. "United States v. Wetherald, 636 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Mar 28, 2011)", ~ (2011)
  67. "Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639", ~ (1990)

관련 논문AI추천

우리나라의 양형기준에 대한 비판적 분석이호중한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2010 · 제22권 제1호우리나라 양형기준에 대한 고찰류부곤한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2012 · 제24권 제4호양형기준의 시행에 대한 평가와 개선방향서보학한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2011 · 제23권 제4호합리적 양형기준을 위한 공통된 양형인자 도출의 필요성 - 제 2기 양형위원회 양형기준 대상범죄 양형인자 도출의 통일성 위한 비교법적 고찰을 중심으로 -승재현법학연구소 · 외법논집2010 · 제34권 제3호우리나라 양형기준 설정방식과 양형위원회 운용방식에 관한 점검 및 개선방안박형관한국형사정책학회 · 형사정책2014 · 제26권 제2호우리나라 양형기준 설정의 주요 쟁점과 과제손철우사법발전재단 · 사법2009 · 제1권 제8호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

형법 제3조의 문제점과 해결방안김태수pp. 3-24형사미성년자의 연령 인하 문제를 위한 제언정재준pp. 25-62공동정범에서의 이탈에 관한 연구백정민pp. 63-100단일 범죄 및 다수 범죄임광주pp. 101-124갑오개혁기 형사소송구조에 관한 연구박성민pp. 153-190
원문 보기