무고죄의 형량과 양형인자에 관한 실증적 연구
The Analysis of sentenced penalty and sentencing factors for false accusation
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The main purposes of this study is to analyze the application of sentencing guideline for false accusation. The 901 cases of false accusation offenses which were sentenced from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010 are analyzed. Based on an analysis during 18 months after the implement of the 1st sentencing guideline, there was no radical changes on sentencing practices. The 486 offenders are sentenced to jail, 134 offenders are punished with a fine. Among 486 offenders who are sentenced to jail, 406 offenders are a stay of execution. Current sentencing guideline system, however, has its own limits, in that it has not yet provided guidelines on fine. Moreover, the guideline system is not compatible with sentencing principles of the Criminal Act. There lacks clarity in the definition of sentencing factors on offence and on offender. This may not justify the principle that sentencing factors on offence shall has priority over those on offender. Even though this sentencing standards are advisory, the fact that the announcement of this standards make many people have a norm in sentencing and by doing so it is expected to bring gradual changes in a good way.
Abstract
The main purposes of this study is to analyze the application of sentencing guideline for false accusation. The 901 cases of false accusation offenses which were sentenced from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010 are analyzed. Based on an analysis during 18 months after the implement of the 1st sentencing guideline, there was no radical changes on sentencing practices. The 486 offenders are sentenced to jail, 134 offenders are punished with a fine. Among 486 offenders who are sentenced to jail, 406 offenders are a stay of execution. Current sentencing guideline system, however, has its own limits, in that it has not yet provided guidelines on fine. Moreover, the guideline system is not compatible with sentencing principles of the Criminal Act. There lacks clarity in the definition of sentencing factors on offence and on offender. This may not justify the principle that sentencing factors on offence shall has priority over those on offender. Even though this sentencing standards are advisory, the fact that the announcement of this standards make many people have a norm in sentencing and by doing so it is expected to bring gradual changes in a good way.
참고문헌 (19)
- 김영환, "양형의 법적 성격과 양형의 합리화", 형사정책연구, 7(4) (1996)
- 김일수, "바람직한 양형조사제도 - 기관갈등의 분석과 출구 -" (2010), 세창출판사
- 법정형체계의 정비방안, "김혜경", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2006)
- 박강우, "대법원 양형기준안과 바람직한 양형개혁의 방향", 저스티스, (114), pp.206~229 (2009), 한국법학원
- 박미랑, "무고죄 양형에 관한 경험적 연구 －제1기 양형기준 적용현황 분석－", 법학논총, 28(3), pp.159~179 (2011), 법학연구소
- 서봉규, "현행 양형기준의 문제점과 개선방안", 홍익법학, 11(2), pp.33~67 (2010), 법학연구소
- 범행비례적 양형론에 관한 연구, "손동권", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2006)
- 승재현, "양형의 규범적 판단 근거와 합리적인 양형기준방안에 관한 연구 : 우리나라 양형위원회의 양형기준에 대한 평가 및 개선 방향을 중심으로", 박사, 형사법, pp.2009
- 양형위원회, , 양형기준안에 관한 제3차 공청회자료집 (2010)
- 양형위원회, , 양형기준안에 관한 제차공청회 2010 (2010)
- 양형위원회, "2차 공청회 결과보고: 강도 횡령 배임 위증 무고 양형기준안", ~ (2009)
- 오영근, "바람직한 양형기준의 방식", 형사정책연구, 20(1), pp.347~370 (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 오영근, "양형개혁 법률안의 합리적 운용방안", 법학논총, 24(1) (2007), 한양대학교 법학연구소
- 이민식, "위증 범죄의 양형에 관한 경험적 연구: 제1기 양형기준 적용현황 분석", 홍익법학, 12(3), pp.57~82 (2011), 법학연구소
- 이주형, "최초 양형기준에 대한 비판적 고찰", 형사법의 신동향, 통권 : 21 (2009)
- 이호중, "우리나라의 양형기준에 대한 비판적 분석", 형사법연구, 22(1), pp.241~272 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 최석윤, "경험적 연구결과에 기초한 양형요소 분석", 형사정책연구, 17(4), pp.877~908 (2006), 한국형사정책연구원
- 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