형사특별법의 입법구조와 이론적 기초
Problematical reality of the criminal legislation in Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The reality of the criminal legislation can be summarized as the following:Hard criminal code has led to the production of special criminal code. The special criminal code is legislated only focusing on the convenience of application. special criminal, however, usually provide harsher punishments than the criminal code, and the degree of the criminal penalties is excessively relentless compared with that of the criminals. Aggravation factors of the special criminal are out of balance and vague. Many provisions of the special criminal code overlapped with those of the criminal code and they finally caused confusion of application, decrease of norm power of the criminal code, inconvenience of reading acts and decrease of certainty. Special criminal about aggravated punishments especially came from a concept: the strongest punishment is the most efficient way to prevent crimes. It, however, brought serious side effects to criminal practices (or affairs) by abusing strong punishments unnecessarily. Even though we create special criminal repetitively to deal with newly emerging crimes, we cannot prevent all of the crimes perfectly. To keep out from those side effects, special criminal which are too strong - and are occasionally replating the existing criminal code - should be included in the existing criminal code by certain standards and procedures. From this perspective, first up, it should be sincerely considered whether a new special code legislation is really necessary, reasonable and it can rightly function or not. Secondly (and in particular), newly emerging crimes should be controled not by newly legislated special criminal code but by the existing criminal code with amendment. In conclusion, these tries and efforts only can prevent the criminal code from withering its own power, eliminate the chaotic criminal code system and ultimately guarantee its effectiveness.
Abstract
The reality of the criminal legislation can be summarized as the following:Hard criminal code has led to the production of special criminal code. The special criminal code is legislated only focusing on the convenience of application. special criminal, however, usually provide harsher punishments than the criminal code, and the degree of the criminal penalties is excessively relentless compared with that of the criminals. Aggravation factors of the special criminal are out of balance and vague. Many provisions of the special criminal code overlapped with those of the criminal code and they finally caused confusion of application, decrease of norm power of the criminal code, inconvenience of reading acts and decrease of certainty. Special criminal about aggravated punishments especially came from a concept: the strongest punishment is the most efficient way to prevent crimes. It, however, brought serious side effects to criminal practices (or affairs) by abusing strong punishments unnecessarily. Even though we create special criminal repetitively to deal with newly emerging crimes, we cannot prevent all of the crimes perfectly. To keep out from those side effects, special criminal which are too strong - and are occasionally replating the existing criminal code - should be included in the existing criminal code by certain standards and procedures. From this perspective, first up, it should be sincerely considered whether a new special code legislation is really necessary, reasonable and it can rightly function or not. Secondly (and in particular), newly emerging crimes should be controled not by newly legislated special criminal code but by the existing criminal code with amendment. In conclusion, these tries and efforts only can prevent the criminal code from withering its own power, eliminate the chaotic criminal code system and ultimately guarantee its effectiveness.
참고문헌 (36)
- 소흥렬, "논리와 사고", pp.68~77 (1979), 이화여자대학교 출판부
- 정대관, "韓國 特別刑法의 問題點 小考", 비교형사법연구, 6(1), pp.263~286 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
- 중앙일보, "성범지자 신상공개, 여성부(아동 청소년 상대범죄) 법무부(성인상대범죄) 이원화돼 관리 허점", ~ (2012)
- 중앙일보, "성범죄자 신상공개 3년까지 소급적용 추진", ~ (2012)
- 중앙일보, "지하철 몰카(미성년 대상)도 신상 공개한다", ~ (2012)
- 이기헌, "동종의 범죄를 가액에 따라 차등처벌하는 특별형법규정 – 해석상의 문제점을 중심으로", 형사판례연구, (3), pp.108~ (1995), 박영사
- 황일호, "국민참여재판의 중간평가와 향후과제", 중앙법학, 13(3), pp.273~310 (2011), 중앙법학회
- 김봉수, "국민참여재판의 개시요건에 대한 고찰- 「대상사건의 축소」와「절차회부의 의무화」를 중심으로 -", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.9~34 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 김병수, "국민참여재판의 활성화 방안에 관한 연구", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.35~64 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 차정인, "항소심의 제1심 국민참여재판 판결 파기", 법학연구, 51(1), pp.103~135 (2010), 법학연구소
- 이경렬, "형사특별법의 입법구조와 이론적 기초", 한·중 학술교류의 회고와 전망(제10회 한·중 국제학술대회 자료집), pp.89~90 (2012), 한국비교형사법학회
- 이덕인, "국민 참여 형사재판제도의 정착을 위한 제언", 비교형사법연구, 14(1), pp.109~140 (2012), 한국비교형사법학회[DOI]
- 장영민, "5대 형사특별법 제·개정 자료집" (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 한인섭, "특별형법의 기본적 문제점", 인권과 정의, (170), pp.13~14 (1990), 대한변호사협회
- 김성규, "형사입법정책의 중벌주의적 관점에 대한 비판적 이해", 입법과 정책, 3(1), pp.12~ (2011), 국회 입법조사처
- 특별형법전의 정비를 위한 기초연구, "윤동호", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2005)
- 형사특별법의 정비를 위한 이론적 기초, "도중진", ~ (2008)
- 2011년도 형법 형사소송법 및 형사특별법 제 개정안 분석과 입법정책 개선방안, "탁희성", ~ (2011)
- "대법원 2003. 10. 24. 선고 2003도5322 판결", ~ (2003)
- 김혜정, "성폭력범죄에 있어서 ‘항거불능의 상태’의 의미", 형사판례연구, (14), pp.355~ (2006), 박영사
- "전문가도 헷갈리는 성폭력범죄 처벌 규정" (2011), 법률신문[URL]
- "대법원 2004. 4. 9. 선고 2003도6351 판결", ~ (2004)
- 신동운, "형법총론, 제6판", pp.351~ (2011), 법문사
- "대법원 2001. 6. 15. 선고 2001도1017 판결", ~ (2001)
- 김성돈, "공소시효제도와 소급금지원칙", 법학논고, 11, pp.31~ (1995), 경북대학교 법학연구소
- 김영환, "공소시효와 형벌불소급의 원칙", 형사판례연구, (5), pp.10~ (1997), 박영사
- 조국, "반인권적 국가범죄의 공소시효의 정지 배제와 소급효금지의 원칙", 형사법연구, (17), pp.1~18 (2002), 한국형사법학회
- 김성돈, "형법총론, 제2판", pp.71~ (2009), SKKUP
- 권창국, "‘청소년 성매매’행위 등에 대한 규제방법으로서 신상공개제도에 관한 검토", 형사정책연구, 12(2), pp.219~ (2001), 한국형사정책연구원
- 이경재, "성범죄자 신상공개의 법적 문제점", 저스티스, 통권 : 65, pp.17~ (2002)
- "헌법재판소 1994. 6. 30. 선고 92헌바38 결정", ~ (1994)
- 김기춘, "조선시대형전", pp.115~ (1990), 삼영사
- 임상규, "성범죄자 신상공개의 필요성과 허구성", 형사법연구, (19), pp.372~392 (2003), 한국형사법학회
- Neumann·Schroth, "형사정책의 새로운 이론", pp.24~ (1994), 홍문사
- 류우런원, "중국 식품안전의 형법규제", 한·중 학술교류의 회고와 전망(제10회 한·중 국제학술대회 자료집), pp.216~ (2012), 한국비교형사법학회
- 심재우, "형벌권의 한계", 고시연구, pp.13~ (1978)