교통사고처리특례법의 문제점과 존폐논의에 대한 검토
A Study on the problem and the Continuation or Abolition of『Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of the Traffic Accidents (ASCSTA)』
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The legislative purpose of 「Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of the Traffic Accidents (ASCSTA)」is to facilitate a prompt recovery of damages caused by traffic accidents and to promote convenience for people's everyday life by providing special cases on criminal punishment for drivers involved in traffic accidents through occupational or gross negligence. But, at 02. 26. 2009, concerning ASCSTA Art. 4 ①, in 7-2 ruling, the Constitutional Court said that this clause violate fundamental rights of the constitutional law of the victims, the right to state during the proceedings of the trial and the right of equality. According to the amendment in conformity with the decision of the Constitutional Court, drivers inflicted serious bodily damage shall be subject to criminal punishment if there was no agreement with the victim. However it remains an interpretative problem with reference to exceptions of punishment prescribed the condition of Art. 3② and Art. 4. According to the body and condition of Art. 3②, the drivers that caused the accident should not be punished against the victims intention unless the drivers does not apply to eleven exceptional conditions of Art. 3②. Further, as prescribed by Art. 4, if the drivers that caused the accident take up an full insurance coverage, it was regarded that the victims don't want to punish the drivers that caused the accident. But above-mentioned two exceptions prescribed the condition of Art. 3② and Art. 4 do not relate with the legislative purpose of ASCSTA. This legislation case such as the exception of Art. 4 in ASCSTA is especially unparalleled in any other country in the world. Consequently, it is desired that we should abolish two exceptions prescribed ASCSTA and prescribe the punishment of driver's illegal act relative to the accident through rather negligence crimes of the Criminal Law than a special law such as ASCSTA.
Abstract
The legislative purpose of 「Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of the Traffic Accidents (ASCSTA)」is to facilitate a prompt recovery of damages caused by traffic accidents and to promote convenience for people's everyday life by providing special cases on criminal punishment for drivers involved in traffic accidents through occupational or gross negligence. But, at 02. 26. 2009, concerning ASCSTA Art. 4 ①, in 7-2 ruling, the Constitutional Court said that this clause violate fundamental rights of the constitutional law of the victims, the right to state during the proceedings of the trial and the right of equality. According to the amendment in conformity with the decision of the Constitutional Court, drivers inflicted serious bodily damage shall be subject to criminal punishment if there was no agreement with the victim. However it remains an interpretative problem with reference to exceptions of punishment prescribed the condition of Art. 3② and Art. 4. According to the body and condition of Art. 3②, the drivers that caused the accident should not be punished against the victims intention unless the drivers does not apply to eleven exceptional conditions of Art. 3②. Further, as prescribed by Art. 4, if the drivers that caused the accident take up an full insurance coverage, it was regarded that the victims don't want to punish the drivers that caused the accident. But above-mentioned two exceptions prescribed the condition of Art. 3② and Art. 4 do not relate with the legislative purpose of ASCSTA. This legislation case such as the exception of Art. 4 in ASCSTA is especially unparalleled in any other country in the world. Consequently, it is desired that we should abolish two exceptions prescribed ASCSTA and prescribe the punishment of driver's illegal act relative to the accident through rather negligence crimes of the Criminal Law than a special law such as ASCSTA.
참고문헌 (18)
- 박상기, "형사특별법론" (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 박상기, "형사특별법" (2013), 집현재
- 방기호, "교통사고처리특례법 해설", 순간법제, (2) (1982)
- 형사특별법정비방안(7), "이승현", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2008)
- 이주원, "특별형법" (2011), 弘文社
- 강동욱, "중상해 교통사고 운전자의 형사책임인정에 관한 비판적 고찰 - 교통사고처리특례법제4조제1항의 위헌결정과 관련하여 -", 형사정책연구, 20(4), pp.175~197 (2009), 한국형사정책연구원
- 문채규, "교통사고 관련 형사법규들의 체계적 해석 - 도로교통법 제54조 제1항, 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제5조의3 제1항 및 교통사고처리특례법 제3조 제2항의 ‘필요한 조치’ 중 ‘신원확인조치’의 포함 여부를 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 33, pp.149~180 (2011), 부설법학연구소
- 박동률, "교통사고처리 특례법상의 ‘교통’의 의미와 그 범위- 도로교통법상의 ‘운전’과 자동차손해배상 보장법상의 ‘운행’과의 상호관계를 중심으로 -", 법학논고, (34), pp.155~184 (2010), 법학연구원
- 박미숙, "교통사고처리특례법의 문제점과 개선방향", 형사정책연구, 15(3), pp.229~266 (2004), 한국형사정책연구원
- 박상식, "교통사고처리특례법의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구 - 음주운전, 중상해를 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 20(3), pp.113~155 (2012), 법학연구소
- 설재훈, "지속가능하고 안정한 교통정책 방향", 교통, 통권 : 121 (2008)
- 손기식, "교통형법의 체계정립을 위한 시론", 법조, 35(5) (1986)
- 이승현, "교통사고처리특례법과 중상해", 법과정책연구, 9(1), pp.225~247 (2009), 한국법정책학회
- 이효원, "교통사고처리특례법 제4조 제1항 위헌확인 결정에 대한 비판적 분석", 서울대학교 법학, 50(2), pp.653~679 (2009), 법학연구소
- 오경식, "교통사고처리특례법 제4조 제1항의 위헌결정에 대한 형사정책적 검토", 형사판례연구, 18, pp.579~612 (2010), 한국형사판례연구회
- 장규원, "형사조정제도의 실효성 확보방안 연구", 피해자학연구, 16(2), pp.31~50 (2008), 한국피해자학회
- 정광정, "교통사고처리특례법에 나타난 문제점, 오선주교수정년기념논문집" (2001)
- 정문식, "과잉금지원칙과 과소금지원칙의 관계 - 교통사고처리특례법 제4조 제1항에 대한 헌법재판소 결정(2005헌마764등)과 관련하여 -", 법과정책연구, 9(1), pp.197~223 (2009), 한국법정책학회
