소년법의 적용과 전자장치 부착명령
Juvenile Mitigation and Electronic Monitoring for the Juvenile Offender
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The korean juvenile law has adopted the discretionary mitigation of sentence on the basis of juvenile characteristics since 1988. And the court made it a rule that juvenile mitigation is available only to the offender who is juvenile at the time of adjudication. But juvenile offender may suffer unjust disadvantage in sentencing and appeal because of delayed processing. To avoid such an injustice any offender who was juvenile at the time of committing a crime should be benefited by juvenile mitigation. Futhermore the age criterion which divides juvenile and adult has been changed from 20 years to 19 years in 2007. When an offender committed a crime before amendment of the juvenile law and the trial was held after that, juvenile mitigation should be possible because he/she was juvenile according to the old law as favorable to the accused. The korean legislator has introduced electronic monitoring for the violent sex offender in 2007. But the offender who is under 19 years old shall be exempt from attaching electronic devices. The court ruled that it may order electronic monitoring for the juvenile offender because the law only excludes execution of electronic monitoring for the benefit of juveniles. However such an interpretation might produce so many problems including disparity or distortion in sentencing, appeal and parole. In fact identity disclosure and chemical castration for the violent sex offender could not be applied to the offender who is juvenile at the time of adjudication. So the court should not order electronic monitoring to the juvenile offender. In order to prevent recidivism after release of imprisonment the electronic monitoring could be imposed by the parole board if he/she is not juvenile at that time.
Abstract
The korean juvenile law has adopted the discretionary mitigation of sentence on the basis of juvenile characteristics since 1988. And the court made it a rule that juvenile mitigation is available only to the offender who is juvenile at the time of adjudication. But juvenile offender may suffer unjust disadvantage in sentencing and appeal because of delayed processing. To avoid such an injustice any offender who was juvenile at the time of committing a crime should be benefited by juvenile mitigation. Futhermore the age criterion which divides juvenile and adult has been changed from 20 years to 19 years in 2007. When an offender committed a crime before amendment of the juvenile law and the trial was held after that, juvenile mitigation should be possible because he/she was juvenile according to the old law as favorable to the accused. The korean legislator has introduced electronic monitoring for the violent sex offender in 2007. But the offender who is under 19 years old shall be exempt from attaching electronic devices. The court ruled that it may order electronic monitoring for the juvenile offender because the law only excludes execution of electronic monitoring for the benefit of juveniles. However such an interpretation might produce so many problems including disparity or distortion in sentencing, appeal and parole. In fact identity disclosure and chemical castration for the violent sex offender could not be applied to the offender who is juvenile at the time of adjudication. So the court should not order electronic monitoring to the juvenile offender. In order to prevent recidivism after release of imprisonment the electronic monitoring could be imposed by the parole board if he/she is not juvenile at that time.
참고문헌 (43)
- "대구지방법원 2008.12.12. 선고 2008고합757, 2008전고6 (병합) 판결", ~
- "대구고법 2009.3.26. 선고 2008노617, 2008전노5 (병합) 판결", ~
- Akers, "Criminological Theories, 5th ed", pp.19~ (2009), Oxford University Press
- "형사소송법 제323조 제항", ~
- "형사소송법 제361조의5 15호, 제383조 4호", ~
- 최병각, "자수의 소송법적 효과", 비교형사법연구, 5(1), pp.14~364 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회
- 최병각, "양형의 과정과 통제", 형사정책연구, 11(3), pp.167~178 (2000)
- 최병각, "소년감경의 적용요건과 소송법적 효과", 형사법연구, (12), pp.480~484 (1999)
- 최병각, "소년법개정과 소년사법의 건전한 육성", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.1081~1104 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- "대법원 2009.11.19. 2009도6058", ~
- "대법원 2010.5.13. 2009도5658", ~
- "대법원 1991.12.10. 91도2393", ~
- "대법원 1997.2.14. 96도1241", ~
- "대법원 2000.8.18. 2000도2704", ~
- "대법원 2008.10.23. 2008도8090", ~
- 최병각, "소년사법에서의 소년보호", 형사법연구, 19(3-하), pp.247~270 (2007), 한국형사법학회
- 최병각, "소년법 제60조 제2항의 소년감경의 적용요건", 형사정책연구소식, (31), pp.12~18 (1995)
- 최병각, "소년심판대상의 연령기준", 형사정책연구소식, (60), pp.24~29 (2000)
- 서희종, "소년법 제60조 제2항의 소년여부 판단의 기준시", 법원행정처, 대법원판례해석, 재판연구관 세미나자료, 통권 : 16, pp.765~ (1991)
- 최병각, "소년법에서의 소년은 누구인가?", 형사정책연구소식, (15), pp.25~26 (1993)
- 김병운, "소년법 제60조 제2항에 따른 감경의 기준시기", 대법원판례해설, (28), pp.682~ (1997)
- "대법원 1991.4.9. 91도357", ~
- "서울고법 2000. 5. 30. 선고 2000노202 판결", ~
- "대전고법 1996. 4. 26. 선고 95노540 판결", ~
- 최병각, "아동권리협약과 소년사법", pp.58~59 (2007), 국가인권위원회
- Eisenberg, "Jugendgerichtsgesetz, 13. Auflage", pp.58~ (2009), Verlag C.H.Beck
- Roxin, "Strafrecht Allegemeiner Teil, Band I, 4. Auflage", pp.913~ (2006), Verlag C.H.Beck
- 정현미, "성폭력범죄대책과 전자감시: 특정 범죄자에 대한 위치추적전자장치부착에 관한 법률”의 검토를 중심으로", 형사정책, 21(1), pp.321~349 (2009), 한국형사정책학회
- "대법원 2009.9.10. 2009도6061, 2009전도13", ~
- "대법원 2009.5.14. 2009도1947, 2009전도5", ~
- 윤지영, "위치추적 전자감시제도에 관한 비판적 고찰 - 미국 캘리포니아 주와의 비교 검토를 중심으로 -", 피해자학연구, 18(2), pp.375~400 (2010), 한국피해자학회
- 문정민, "성범죄자 전자감시제도에 대한 고찰", 법학연구, (29), pp.221~241 (2008), 한국법학회
- 박상열, "전자감시제도의 입법과 적용방안", 矯正硏究, 35, pp.79~95 (2007), 한국교정학회
- 김종호, "성폭력범죄자에 대한 법정형 및 위치추적 전자장치 부착명령과 양형에 관한 특별법 규정들의 위헌 여부", 대법원판례해설, (80), pp.904~905 (2009)
- 박혜진, "소위 전자장치부착법(특정 성범죄자에 대한 위치추적 전자장치 부착에 관한 법률)에 대한 비판적 고찰", 형사정책, 20(2), pp.225~251 (2008), 한국형사정책학회
- 김재중, "한국의 전자감시제도 및 그 발전방안", 법학연구, 18(1), pp.50~ (2007), 충북대
- "대법원 1997.6.13. 97도703", ~
- 윤영철, "우리나라 전자감시제도에 대한 비판적 소고: 특정 성폭력범죄자에 대한 위치추적 전자장치 부착에 관한 법률을 중심으로", 형사정책연구, 19(3), pp.201~228 (2008), 한국형사정책연구원
- "대법원 2008.7.24. 2008어4", ~
- "헌법재판소 1994.6.30. 92헌바38", ~
- 박지현, "보안관찰법에 관한 기본권 해석", 법학논총, 24(3), pp.431~446 (2007), 법학연구소
- 윤상민, "형사제재와 소급효금지의 원칙", 법학연구, (38), pp.199~221 (2010), 한국법학회
- 이춘화, "위치추적 전자장치 부착명령의 위헌성 유무", 형사판례연구, 18, pp.613~639 (2010), 한국형사판례연구회