소년보호처분 처리 절차상 문제점과 개선 방안

Abstract

This study aims to empirically examine the actual operation and structural limitations of juvenile protective disposition procedures in South Korea and to propose directions for institutional improvement. While public anxiety over juvenile crime and calls for harsher punishment have intensified, official statistics indicate that both the scale of juvenile crime and its proportion among all crimes have remained relatively stable over the past two decades, with serious violent offenses accounting for only a small share. Nevertheless, policy discourse on juvenile justice has increasingly gravitated toward punitive responses, often driven by a limited number of high-profile cases. Against this backdrop, the present study analyzes in-depth interview data collected from 37 juvenile justice professionals, including juvenile court judges, court-appointed juvenile defense counsels, juvenile classification examiners, and academic researchers. The analysis identifies several persistent procedural and structural problems in the decision-making process for juvenile protective dispositions. First, the dual-track structure separating criminal proceedings and protective proceedings frequently results in repeated transfers between procedures, leading to prolonged case processing times and undermining the timeliness and consistency of protective interventions. Second, the legal standards for distinguishing between criminal punishment and protective dispositions, as well as for selecting specific types of protective measures, remain overly abstract, resulting in excessive reliance on prosecutorial and judicial discretion and producing substantial disparities across regions, institutions, and individual decision-makers. Third, the rotational assignment of judges and excessive caseloads limit courts’ capacity to fully consider juveniles’ developmental characteristics and social environments, thereby weakening procedural predictability and transparency. In addition, the study finds that the system governing status offenders has increasingly functioned as a quasi-punitive control mechanism rather than a preventive and welfare-oriented intervention, heightening the risks of stigmatization and secondary delinquency. The analysis further reveals insufficient interdisciplinary collaboration, fragmented information-sharing among agencies, and limited linkage to community-based welfare resources during the disposition process. Structural constraints on court-appointed juvenile counsels—particularly delayed appointment and restricted access to case records—were also found to undermine juveniles’ procedural rights. Moreover, victims’ opportunities for procedural participation and access to information remain inadequately institutionalized within juvenile protective proceedings. Based on these findings, the study proposes several policy recommendations, including reforming the dual-track procedural structure; clarifying and standardizing disposition criteria; establishing specialized juvenile justice institutions; strengthening welfare-centered responses for status offenders; institutionalizing interdisciplinary decision-making bodies; standardizing investigation systems; enhancing the effectiveness of court-appointed juvenile counsel; and introducing formal mechanisms to ensure victims’ procedural participation and access to information. By grounding its analysis in the experiential knowledge of juvenile justice professionals, this study contributes empirical evidence to ongoing debates and provides a policy-relevant foundation for strengthening procedural fairness and advancing the protective philosophy underlying juvenile justice.