2021년 일본 소년법 개정에 대한 검토 - 18・19세 소년(특정소년)의 새로운 처분을 중심으로 -
A Study on the Amendment to the Juvenile Act — Focusing on the Amendments for 18 and 19 years old youths (specific juveniles) —
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
On March 2021, the bill for partly amending the Juvenile Act was submitted to the National Assembly. It was formed as it is on May 21, 2021 and will be implemented from April 1, 2022. The Juvenile Act and Criminal Act Subcommittee (for Juvenile Age and Offenders Treatment) of the Judiciary Committee has paid attention to the fact that 18 and 19 years old youths have the right to vote as a result of the amendment to the Public Office Election Act and they are treated as adults from 2022 as a result of the amendment to the Civil Act, and considered lowering the age at which the Juvenile Act is applicable. The amendments that have been completed through long discussions define 18 and 19 years old youths as “Specific Juveniles”and treat them different from persons under the age of 18 by making an exception. In other words, although 18 and 19 years youths still cannot be considered full-grown youths, they are beings expected to participate in the society with responsibilities having the right to vote and, therefore, they are defined as intermediate persons between juveniles and adults. The basic framework of the current Juvenile Act un which all cases are forwarded to family courts and probation is determined by conducting investigations and rendering a judgment, remains effective as to specific juveniles. As a result of these amendments, however, as for 18 and 19 years old youths, the scope of the so-called “referral to public prosecutor in principle” extends to the offenses punishable by imprisonment with or without forced labor for a short term of one (1) year. Moreover, the provision defining juveniles likely to commit a crime in the future is not applicable (as an exception for probation). The exception of report prohibition is applicable after indictment. If a suspect is forwarded to the prosecution and then, is subject to criminal judgment, an indefinite term of sentence does not apply and the exception of restrictions on qualifications does not apply as well (which means that they are subject to the same disposition as adults in principle). Those provisions are exceptions different from the provisions for persons under the age of 18. The discussion about specific juveniles are also a discussion about legal bases under juveniles should be defined under the Juvenile Act. Furthermore, the exceptions for specific juveniles open a couple of doors to rehabilitate 18 and 19 years old youths and, in certain cases, to hold them strictly responsible for the offenses they have committed. Taking into serious consideration whether relevant principles and exceptions under the Juvenile Act can possibly coexist, should of great help to establish directions and juvenile policies of the Juvenile Act in the future.
Abstract
On March 2021, the bill for partly amending the Juvenile Act was submitted to the National Assembly. It was formed as it is on May 21, 2021 and will be implemented from April 1, 2022. The Juvenile Act and Criminal Act Subcommittee (for Juvenile Age and Offenders Treatment) of the Judiciary Committee has paid attention to the fact that 18 and 19 years old youths have the right to vote as a result of the amendment to the Public Office Election Act and they are treated as adults from 2022 as a result of the amendment to the Civil Act, and considered lowering the age at which the Juvenile Act is applicable. The amendments that have been completed through long discussions define 18 and 19 years old youths as “Specific Juveniles”and treat them different from persons under the age of 18 by making an exception. In other words, although 18 and 19 years youths still cannot be considered full-grown youths, they are beings expected to participate in the society with responsibilities having the right to vote and, therefore, they are defined as intermediate persons between juveniles and adults. The basic framework of the current Juvenile Act un which all cases are forwarded to family courts and probation is determined by conducting investigations and rendering a judgment, remains effective as to specific juveniles. As a result of these amendments, however, as for 18 and 19 years old youths, the scope of the so-called “referral to public prosecutor in principle” extends to the offenses punishable by imprisonment with or without forced labor for a short term of one (1) year. Moreover, the provision defining juveniles likely to commit a crime in the future is not applicable (as an exception for probation). The exception of report prohibition is applicable after indictment. If a suspect is forwarded to the prosecution and then, is subject to criminal judgment, an indefinite term of sentence does not apply and the exception of restrictions on qualifications does not apply as well (which means that they are subject to the same disposition as adults in principle). Those provisions are exceptions different from the provisions for persons under the age of 18. The discussion about specific juveniles are also a discussion about legal bases under juveniles should be defined under the Juvenile Act. Furthermore, the exceptions for specific juveniles open a couple of doors to rehabilitate 18 and 19 years old youths and, in certain cases, to hold them strictly responsible for the offenses they have committed. Taking into serious consideration whether relevant principles and exceptions under the Juvenile Act can possibly coexist, should of great help to establish directions and juvenile policies of the Juvenile Act in the future.
참고문헌 (27)
- 廣瀬 健二, "少年法" (2021), 成文堂
- 団藤重光, "新版 少年法" (1984), ポケット註釈全書
- 강경래, "일본소년법의 엄벌화 정책은 성공하였는가? -2000년대 일본소년법 개정논의의 타당성 검토-", 소년보호연구, 31(3), pp.1~40 (2018), 한국소년정책학회[DOI]
- 강경래, "소년법 개정논의의 정당성 검토 -일본의 소년연령인하에 관한 논의를 중심으로-", 소년보호연구, 30(4), pp.1~42 (2017), 한국소년정책학회[DOI]
- 강경래, "소년사건의 보도와 소년법", 소년보호연구, 22, pp.1~31 (2013), 한국소년정책학회
- 김성규, "소년사건에서의 이른바 역송(逆送)에 따른 절차의 존재방식 - 일본 「소년법」 제20조 제2항의 해석론을 참고로 하여 -", 소년보호연구, 34(1), pp.27~52 (2021), 한국소년정책학회[DOI]
- 김혁, "형사책임연령과 소년법 개정 논의에 대한 비판적 고찰", 비교형사법연구, 21(1), pp.257~286 (2019), 한국비교형사법학회[DOI]
- 안성훈, "일본소년법 적용연령(상한기준) 인하에 대한 일본 학계의 반대성명과 시사점", 소년보호연구, 31(3), pp.221~250 (2018), 한국소년정책학회[DOI]
- 葛野 尋之, "少年法適用年齢引下げ提案批判", 法律時報, 91(12) (2019)
- 丸山 雅夫, "18歳19歳の犯罪者に対する新たな処分", 刑事法ジャーナル, 67 (2021)
- 吉中 信人, "推知報道", 刑事法ジャーナル, 67 (2021)
- 玉本 将之, "少年法等の一部を改正する法律の概要", 論究ジュリスト, (37) (2021)
- 後藤 弘子, "実名報道と少年法改正", 論究ジュリスト, (37) (2021)
- 山口 直也, "子どもの法定年齢の比較法的検討 歳は大人か子どもか", 法学セミナー, (802) (2021)
- 守屋 克彦, "少年法改正の歴史と年齢引下げ", 法律時報, 90(4) (2018)
- 春原 寛子, "少年法の適用年齢引下げをめぐる議論第2版", 調査と情報, (1137) (2021)
- 小黒 純, "少年事件報道に関する研究 : 実名にすべきか, I匿名にすべきか", 国際社会文化研究所紀要, (11) (2009)
- 小木曽 綾, "令和3年少年法等の一部を改正する法律", 法学教室, (494) (2021)
- 成瀬 剛, "特定少年に対する保護処分", 論究ジュリスト, (37) (2021)
- 川出 敏裕, "少年法の適用対象年齢の引下げを巡る議論について", 東京大学法科大学院ローレビュー, (15) (2021)
- 川名 壮志, "報道現場のルールと異なる推知報道禁止の解除", 季刊刑事弁護, (106) (2021)
- 津田 雅也, "逆送規定の改正", 刑事法ジャーナル, 67 (2021)
- 渡邊 一弘, "原則逆送対象事件の拡大について", 論究ジュリスト, (37) (2021)
- 武内 謙治, "少年法からみた若年者に対する新たな処分", 法律時報, 91(12) (2019)
- 本庄 武, "刑事司法からみた若年者に対する新たな処分", 法律時報, 91(12) (2019)
- 木崎 峻輔, "成人年齢引下げに伴う少年法の適用対象年齢引下げについて", 筑波法政, (77) (2019)
- 廣瀬 健二, "少年法改正について", 刑事法ジャーナル, 67 (2021)
