아동・청소년 대상 ‘디지털 그루밍 범죄’와 함정수사 - 18 U.S.C. §2422(b)의 규정 및 판례를 소재로-
The ‘Digital Grooming Crimes’ Targeting Children and Adolescents and Their Entrapment Investigations ‒ The based on the provisions and case law of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) ‒
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
최근 인터넷을 이용한 아동의 성적 착취와 성적 유인이 한국을 포함한 많은 국가 에서 문제가 되고 있다. 이에 미국에서는 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)에 의해 이러한 행위를 규제하고 있다. 이와 마찬가지로 우리나라에서도 2021년 개정된 「아동‧청소년 성보 호에 관한 법률(이하, ‘청소년성보호법’)」에서는 정보통신망을 이용한 아동・청소년 대상 ‘성착취 목적의 대화등 유인행위’를 범죄로 규정(동법 제15조의2)하고 있다. 이에 더하여 디지털 성범죄를 사전에 예방하고 법인의 체포 및 증거능력이 있는 증거자료를 확보하기 위한 수사방법으로서 ‘신분비공개수사’ 및 ‘신분위장수사’를 허용하는 특례 규정(동법 제25조의2)을 신설하였다. 위와 같은 입법형식을 둘러싸고, 행위객체가 아동이나 청소년이 아닌 성인(수사관)인 경우 ‘‘디지털 그루밍 범죄’’의 해석 및 적용에 있어 실무상 많은 논란이 예상된다. 이에 본 논문에서는 미국의 판례를 분석 및 평가함으로써 우리나라에서의 성착취 목적의 ‘디지털 그루밍 범죄’ 규정의 해석 및 적용범위를 고찰하였다. 그 핵심내용을 정리하면 다음과 같다. 국내에서는 ‘디지털 그루밍 범죄’는 성적 착취의 예비와 유사한 성격을 가지므로, 실행의 착수 이전의 단계를 처벌대상으로 하는 예비죄의 성질상 실행의 착수 이후 단계를 상정하고 있는 미수범 처벌규정을 입법화하는 것은 타당하지 않다는 견해가 있다. 반면, 동 범죄를 신설한 취지를 고려하여 미수범의 형태 중 적어도 범인이 그 상대방을 아동・청소년으로 오인한 불능미수에 대한 처벌규정을 두어야 한다는 견해도 제시되고 있다. 이에 관한 필자의 생각은 다음과 같다. ‘디지털 그루밍 범죄’는 독자적 범죄이면서 성적 착취를 위한 수단으로 이해한다. 그리고 함정수사의 결과 대화등 유인행위의 객체가 동 규정에서 명시하고 있는 아동‧청소년이 아니라 성인(수사관)인 경우에는 추상적 사실에 대한 객체의 착오로서, 행위자는 인식한 사실에 대한 미수범으로 처벌하게 된다. 이 경우 「형법」 제27조 (불능범)의 규정에 의해 수단 또는 대상의 착오로 인하여 결과발생이 불가능하므로 원칙적으로 불가벌이지만 결과발생의 위험성이 있는 경우에 한하여 가벌적인 불능 미수로 처벌할 수 있게 된다. 따라서 동 규정은 아동성착취와 관계하여 미수행위를 처벌하는 독자적 범죄로서, 그 객체가 행위자가 인식한 아동‧청소년이 아닌 성인 (수사관)인 경우 객체의 착오로 인하여 결과의 발생이 불가능하더라도 그 결과발생의 위험성이 인정되면 동 규정에 따라 ‘불능미수범’으로 처벌된다. 그런데 「청소년성 보호법」에는 동범죄에 대한 미수처벌 규정이 없으므로, 죄형법정주의 원칙상 동 범죄에 대한 미수범은 처벌할 수 없다. 따라서 함정수사의 아동‧청소년보호법에 미수범 처벌규정을 입법화할 필요가 있다.
Abstract
Recently, sexual exploitation and sexual solicitation of children through the Internet have become a problem in many countries, including Korea. For example, in the United States, as of 2005, one in seven children were already receiving “unwanted sexual solicitation” through the Internet. In other words, the Internet has become an ideal tool for sexual offenders to hide their identities and select children who can become targets for crimes. Accordingly, the United States regulates such acts under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and similarly, Korea stipulates “conversational solicitation, etc.” crimes related to sexual exploitation of children and adolescents and “secret investigations” as an investigative method for such crimes under the “Juvenile Sexual Protection Act.” Due to the above legislative form, much controversy is expected in investigations and judicial practice surrounding the criteria for judging acts of solicitation and solicitation, and the interpretation and application of punishment provisions when the target of the act is an adult (investigator) rather than a child or adolescent. In this paper, with these issues in mind, we analyzed and evaluated several U.S. case laws to obtain certain implications related to the interpretation of the crime of inducement such as sexual exploitation conversation in Korea and the legitimacy of investigative agencies' nondisclosure of identity investigation methods. The main points of the contents are as follows In the United States, in the case of so-called entrapment investigations in which an investigator pretending to be a child chats with a criminal online, the perpetrator can be punished even if the other party is an adult (investigator) rather than a real child. And the time of commencement of execution is judged based on the ‘act of solicitation’ according to the ‘substantial step test.’ As a result, the defendants claim defenses based on impossibility, entrapment, wiretapping, violation of freedom of expression and due process, fantasy defense, etc., but none of these defenses are accepted. In conclusion, when interpreting and applying the punishment provisions of Article 15-2 of our country's Youth Protection Act, it is natural that the law should be strictly observed so that the individual's freedom and rights guaranteed by the Constitution, represented by the right to due process, are not unfairly violated. However, it should be given more priority to strictly apply and enforce the law and punish sex offenders who cause great harm by luring children using the Internet.
참고문헌 (43)
- 김정연, "온라인 그루밍 처벌규정의 도입 의의와 과제", 형사정책, 33(2)통권 : 66 (2021)
- 김한균, "아동·청소년성보호법상 아동성매수범죄와 위장수사", 형사법의 신동향, 통권 : 42 (2014)
- 신상현, "새로 도입된 신분비공개수사 및 신분위장수사 특례 규정에 대한 검토", 형사소송 이론과 실무, 13(2) (2021)
- 오상지, "아동・청소년의 성보호에 관한 법률상 위장수사의 문제점에 관한 연구", 경찰학연구, 21(3) (2021)
- 김종구, "온라인 성착취 범죄와 사이버 강간에 관한 고찰", 法學論叢, 28(2) (2021), 조선대학교 법학연구소
- 최준혁, "청소년성보호법 개정을 통한 그루밍처벌법에서의 쟁점", 비교형사법연구, 23(2) (2021), 한국비교형사법학회
- "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Sec. 402, 109th Congress 2d Session" (2006)[URL]
- Baer, Merritt, "Who Is the Witness to an Internet Crime: The Confrontation Clause, Digital Forensics, and Child Pornography", Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 30 (2013)
- Boggess, Bridget M., "Attempted Enticement of a Minor: No Place for Pedophiles to Hide under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b)", Missouri Law Review, 72 (2007)
- Book, Christa M., "Do You Really Know Who Is on the Other Side of Your Computer Screen? Stopping Internet Crimes against Children", Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 14 (2004)
- Bustamante, Diane, "Florida Joins the Fight against Revenge Porn: Analysis of Florida’s New Anti-Revenge Porn Law", FIU Law Review, 12 (2017)
- Brodie, Kyle S., "The Obviously Impossible Attempt: A Proposed Revision to the Model Penal Code", Northern Illinois University Law Review, 15 (1995)
- Christa M., "Do You Really Know Who Is on the Other Side of Your Computer Screen? Stopping Internet Crimes against Children", Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 14 (2004)
- Christensen, Korey J., "Reforming Attempt Liability under 18 U.S.C. §2422(B): An Insubstantial Step Back from United States v. Rothenberg", Duke Law Journal, 61 (2011)
- Cohen, Alix Iris, "Nonconsensual Pornography and the First Amendment: A Case for a New Unprotected Category of Speech", University of Miami Law Review, 70 (2015)
- Driscoll, Sarah E., "Revenge Porn: Chivalry Prevails as Legislation Protects Damsels in Distress over Freedom of Speech", Roger Williams University Law Review, 21 (2016)
- Hamilton, Melissa, "The Child Pornography Crusade and Its Net-Widening Effect", Cardozo Law Review, 33 (2012)
- Herward, Julie A., "To Catch All Predators: Toward a Uniform Interpretation of ‘Sexual Activity’ in the Federal Child Enticement Statute", American University Law Review, 63 (2014)
- Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998, , ~, pp.H.R. Report No.105-557
- Allan Ides, "Examples & Explanations: Constitutional Law: Individual Rights" (2016), Wolters Kluwer
- Jacobs, Elana T., "Online Sexual Solicitation of Minors: An Analysis of the Average Predator, His Victims, What Is Being Done and Can Be Done to Decrease Occurrences of Victimization", Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 10 (2012)
- Jeffress, Jonathan, "Enticers and Travelers: Law and Strategy in ‘Child Sex’ Cases", ~ (2014)
- "Defendants Plead Fantasy, cybercrime-alerts"[URL]
- Klever, Laura M., "Reinvigorated Judicial Discretion after Booker: Burden or Boon to Sexual Exploitation Offenders?", The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 11 (2007)
- LaCroix, Anthony, "Attempted Online Child Enticement: Not Impossible, But Not That Simple", The Dartmouth Law Journal, 5 (2007)
- Lovejoy, Tyler Patrick, "A New Playground: Sexual Predators and Pedophiles Online: Criminalizing Cyber Sex between Adults and Minors", St. Thomas Law Review, 20 (2008)
- Marcelo, Sheila Lirio, "‘It’s Like Inviting Pedophiles into Your Home’-Internet Safety Alert for Parents", ~
- "The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing: Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-145" (2011)[URL]
- Pazuniak, Andriy, "A Better Way to Stop Online Predators: Encouraging a More Appealing Approach to §2422(B)", Seton Hall Law Review, 40 (2010)
- Rogers, Audrey, "New Technology, Old Defenses: Internet Sting Operations and Attempt Liability", University of Richmond Law Review, 38 (2004)
- Rogers, Audrey, "From Peer-to-Peer Networks to Cloud Computing: How Technology is Redefining Child Pornography Laws", St. John’s Law Review, 87 (2013)
- Rubin, Alexandra B., "Criminal Law-First Circuit Denies Double-Intent Requirement for Internet Enticement of Minors-United States v. Dwinells, 508 F. 3d 63(1st Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2961(2008)", Suffolk University Law Review, 42 (2009)
- Samaha, Joel, "Criminal Law" (2014), WADSWORTH CENGAGE Learning
- Schottenfeld, Dara L., "Witches and Communists and Internet Sex Offenders, Oh My: Why It Is Time to Call Off the Hunt", St. Thomas Law Review, 20 (2008)
- Sternicki, Donna, "The Void Left in Illinois Homicide Law after People v. Lopez: The Elimination of Attempted Second Degree Murder", DePaul Law Review, 46 (1996)
- "The Seventh Circuit’s Interpretation of Sexual Activity"[URL]
- Szarvas-Kidd, Danica, "Electronic Luring Statutes under Fire, Part I: How the Courts have Responded to Constitutional Challenges to Electronic Luring Statutes", APRI’s Child Sexual Exploitation Update, 3(1) (2006)
- Szarvas-Kidd, Danica, "Electronic Luring Statutes under Fire, Part II: Court Responses to Notable Defenses", APRI’s Child Sexual Exploitation Update, 3(2) (2006)
- Tempio, Elizabeth D., "A", S, John Doe Offender, pp.Federal Prison-The Third Circuit Takes a Hard Line against Child Predators in United States v. Tykarsky, Villanova Law Review[DOI]
- The United States Department of Justice, "Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Citizen’s Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Child Pornography", ~
- The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction: A Report to Congress, "U.S. Department of Justice", ~ (2010)
- Janis Wolak, "Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later", National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, ~ (2006)
- Yamagami, Donald S., "Prosecuting Cyber-Pedophiles: How Can Intent Be Shown in a Virtual World in Light of the Fantasy Defense?", Santa Clara Law Review, 41 (2001)