美國의 死刑法에 대한 硏究 - 美 聯邦大法院의 比3 原則과 매사추세츠 死刑法을 중심으로

姜于乂(Kang Wu Ye) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2007 法學論文集 Vol.31 No.1

  For more than 40 years, in America, the courts and the legislatures have been struggling for the better death penalty laws. Those efforts gave birth to the most distinctive and important principle of the proportionality. The principle of proportionality, in its" extreme form, does not allow any legal formality. Because the means which human beings can rely on for a rational legal system do not appear to work well in this highly sensitive area of death penalty laws. Justice Harlan,in the case of MacGautha v. California, declared that it was impossible to establish the legal standards of death sentencing based on human languages before the consideration of actual cases.<BR>  On the other hand, without legal standards, whim and caprice freely come into the decision making process of death sentencing. In Ferman, the Supreme Court of United States explicitly expressed that it could not be tolerant of the lawlessness of death sentencing process. After Ferman, the ideas of MacGautha and Ferman have seriously collided with each other. That is, even though the principle of proportionality does not easily allow the rule of law in the process of death sentencing, the total absence of the rule of law is also intolerable. As a matter of fact, even though this is a serious paradox, this has incited the enormous debates about the jurisprudence of death penalty laws in America.<BR>  Today, the conspicuous and concealed injustice in the operation of death penalty system gets widespread skepticisms. First, those skepticisms points out the invidious factors, such as race and wealth, that have intervened with the decision making process of death sentencing. Also, the criticisms state that any death penalty systems operated by human beings inevitably produces the unjust and inaccurate consequences. The Death Penalty Act of Massachusetts is a reaction to those skepticisms. Because it tries to reestablish the more justifiable death penalty system, it follows the tradition of Ferman. Most of all, it aggressively makes an effort to resolve the question of accuracy in the proof of evidence. Also, it tries to control the discretions of participants of a criminal proceeding, which the Supreme Court in Ferman casts some doubt on. Most of the proposals in the Massachusetts Death Penalty Act are about the procedural reformations of the criminal justice system. In my view, this is because no substantive approaches are fundamentally effective for the reformation of death penalty laws, owing to the principle of proportionality.<BR>  In Korea, the criminal justice system of extinguishing a human being"s life should be more cautiously dealt with and thus deserves more resources. The experience of America may shed some lights on our death penalty system. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that the power of the principle of proportionality may always casts some doubt on any legal standards, whether it is procedural or substantive and thus makes it difficult to produce a kind of a perfect system. The pressure of anti-death penalty arguments, along with the agnostic power of proportionality, may defeat any effort of the formation of death penalty system. Then, it must lead to the abolition of death penalty. This is ultimately dependant on the emotion and acceptability about death penalty among members of a community.

형사법개정연구(Ⅳ) : 보안처분제도의 정비방안

강우예(Kang Wu Ye),박학모(Park Hark-Mo) 한국형사법무정책연구원 2009 형사정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.- No.-

[형사특별법 정비방안(16)] 국제조약의 국내이행 형사특별법

강우예(Kang Wu Ye) 한국형사법무정책연구원 2008 형사정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.- No.-

피학대여성의 행위에 대한 가벌성 검토에 있어 피학대여성증후군의 가치에 관한 연구

강우예(Kang, Wu-Ye) 한국피해자학회 2010 被害者學硏究 Vol.18 No.2

Battered women syndrome as a type of expert testimony has been widely used since early 1980s in American court to support the argument of justification, excuse and mitigation of sentence of battered women's criminal acts. This fact has been introduced through some articles and other legal materials. In recent years, the written expert opinions about battered women syndrome have been introduced in Korean courts for the defendants who have long been abused and at last committed serious crimes. What is now in issue is that Korean courts actively try to hear the evidence of the syndrome but do not know what the syndrome is about and how it should be understood. In America, the syndrome has not been a stable and unquestionable scientific concept and therefore has been subject to lots of criticisms, especially on admissibility issue. In this paper, I focus on the scientific and legal validity of battered women syndrome and the subject that the syndrome can prove. In other words, the consideration of culpability of battered women is closely related to the admissibility issue of the syndrome. The answer to this simple question will not be simple or easy, because fundamentally there is no clear middle ground between socio-psychological phenomenon and legal standards of justification, necessity, duress, mitigation of sentence. In conclusion, the syndrome should be more prudently used in a sophisticated way, because it has not perfectly proved its' scientific validity and thus legal value for evidence. The syndrome that has both socio-relational aspect and inner-psychological aspect should be considered for correct points of legal standards of justification and excuse.

비례의 원칙에 대한 비판적 분석

강우예(Kang Wu-Ye) 한국형사법무정책연구원 2009 형사정책연구 Vol.77 No.-

함정수사의 위법성 판단기준의 재검토

강우예 ( Kang Wu Ye ) 한국비교형사법학회 2021 비교형사법연구 Vol.23 No.1

주관설은 피유인자의 범의가 없었다면 수사기관의 유인행위에도 불구하고 법익침해의 결과도 없었을 것 혹은 수사기관의 유인행위가 없었다면 법익침해의 결과도 없었을 것이라는 인과조건적 가설을 중심으로 위법한 함정수사 여부를 판단한다. 주관설에 따르게 되면 기망과 책략을 활용한 수사기법의 위법성 여부가 수사기관 스스로 완전히 파악하지 못한 피유인자의 의사 또는 범죄성향에 따라 결정될 수 있다. 이뿐만 아니라 국가기관이 무작위로 선행 테스트를 하는 방식으로 접근하는 것은 피유인자의 자유권이라는 관점에서 보더라도 분명 문제가 있다. 사실, 주관설은 평판이나 성격 등 피유인자의 숨겨진 귀책사유를 유도된 행위와 연결시킬 가능성을 폭넓게 열어 놓고 있다. 다른 말로 하면, 주관설은 법판단자가 피유인자 내심에 나타났다 사라졌던 수많은 의사와 동기들 중에 위법성과 관련된 것을 집요하게 찾을 수 있도록 하는 빌미를 제공할 수 있다. 우리 대법원이나 미국의 연방대법원은 주관설에서 한 번도 입장을 바꾼적은 없지만 순수하게 피유인자의 범의형성과정만을 가지고 함정수사의 위법성을 판단했다고 보여지지는 않는다. 사실, 우리 대법원의 판결을 분석해보면 특히 2000년대 중반 이후에는 범의유발 여부 보다는 수사기관의 사술 및 계략이 있었는지가 함정수사의 위법성 판단의 주된 초점이었다는 것을 알 수 있다. 그렇다고, 객관설을 보다 예리하게 다듬는다고 하여 함정수사 법리의 불명확성과 불안정성을 완전히 제거할 수 있다는 보장은 없다. 요약하자면, 합리적 선택은 가변성과 탄력성이 불러올 수 있는 위험을 가능한 객관화된 기준을 활용하여 회피하는 작업 속에서 가능하다고 본다. 수사기관이 기망과 책략으로 범죄행위를 유인하기 전에, 아니 더 나아가 위장수사의 모든 단계에서 일정수준 이상으로 확보된 정보가 있어야 한다고 요구하는 하는데서 문제해결의 실마리를 찾아야 한다. 다만, 설령 혐의가 확보되었다고 하더라도 수용할 수 없는 수준의 기망, 유인, 선동, 사주, 협박, 강요 등이 사용되었으면 위법한 함정수사로 평가되어야 한다. 나아가, 위법한 함정수사가 있었는지를 판단할 때는 여러 가지 요소를 종합적으로 고려하는 것을 상당부분 피할 수 없기 때문에 법원이 위장수사를 사전에 허가해주는 제도의 도입을 고려할 필요가 있다. 마치, 영장심사에서 법원이 개별사건의 구체적인 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 혐의소명여부를 판단하는 것처럼 위장수사의 필요성과 상당성을 법원이 사전에 심사하여 허가하도록 하는 방식은 설득력이 있어 보인다. 한편, 우리 대법원이 위법한 함정수사에 대하여 무죄판결이 아닌 형식재판으로 종결을 시키는 것은 논리적으로 적절해 보인다. 다만, 이 공소기각의 법효과는 객관설을 전제로 할 때 더 일관성이 있는 것이다. The subjective theory determine unlawfulness of entrapment mainly based on the hypothesis of causal condition which means that if it were not for a criminal intent of an induced person there would not result any offense or if it were not for an act of inducement of a law enforcement there would not occur any offense. Following the subjective theory, unlawfulness of investigative techniques that relies on inducement and strategem can be determined by a subjective state or a predisposition of a induced person which is fully undisclosed to a law enforcement. In addition, it is problematic for a state to do a random virtue testing in terms of liberty of a induced person. In fact, the subjective theory may open the wide leeway to use evidence of reputation and character which is normally concealed but possibly submitted to prove culpability of a induced person. In other words, the subjective theory can provide a cause to persistently find out any unlawful one in any occurring and disappearing intent and motive in the mind of a induced person. Although Korean Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court has never changed the subjective viewpoint of entrapment, they has never merely relied on the process of forming criminal intent of a induced person to determine unlawfulness of entrapment. As a matter of fact, analyzing the relevant cases of Korean Supreme Court, it can be seen that unacceptable deception and strategem of law enforcement, rather than instigation of criminal intent, has been a principal issue. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that vagueness and uncertainty can not be totally eradicated by sharpening the objective theory. In short, a reasonable countermeasure can be obtained through the process of evading a risk from flexibility and aiming for a standard as objective as possible. Firstly, a law enforcement who use any deception or strategem to make a effective and efficient investigation, should get a particular suspicion of a crime that was or will be soon committed. Even thought there was a reasonable suspicion, the unacceptable deception, inducement, instigation, incitement, threat, coercion can lead to the determination that the investigative technique is unlawful entrapment. Because in determining unlawfulness of entrapment it cannot be avoidable to consider all the relevant circumstances, a kind of supervision system by a court needs to be introduced. Also, the dismissal of indictment is necessary when unlawful entrapment is found, if the objective theory is considered to prevail.

형사법의 판단에 작용하는 동기식 인지에 관한 시론적 연구 -미국 법심리학의 논의들에 대한 분석을 중심으로-

강우예 ( Wu Ye¸ Kang ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2020 홍익법학 Vol.21 No.3

형사절차의 참가자들에게 나타나는 동기식 인지(motivated cognition) 현상은 특정한 결과를 선호하는 심리적 경향이 합리적인 논증을 배후에서 지배하거나 이끌어가는 패턴을 보여준다. 동기식 인지라는 심리학적 현상에 비추어 볼 때 종래 형사법에서 크게 환영받지 못한 결과고려의 방식이 사실상 만연해 있으며 심지어 피할 수 없는 것으로 보인다. 게다가, 동기식 인지에서 작동하는 결과고려는 상당부분 법적 쟁점과 무관한 이념(ideology) 내지 집단적 정체성(group identity)과 결부되어 있으며 심지어 무의식적으로 이루어진다. 동기식 인지는 법판단자가 무의식적 편향에 완전히 종속된 기계라고 믿게 만드는 확고한 근거는 아니지만 그렇다고 완전한 판단의 자유를 누리는 존재는 아니라는 것을 가리키는 개념이다. 동기식 인지에 대해서는 여러 가지 절차법적인 대응방안이 제시될 수 있다. 절차참가자들 특히 배심원과 판사가 동기식 인지를 의식하도록 하여 그 영향을 줄이는 방안이 있다. 동기식 인지는 배심설시, 변론, 전문가증언, 교육 등의 방법으로 그 편향의 효과를 줄일 수 있다. 나아가, 증거 제출의 기준과 방법의 변화를 통하여 동기식 인지을 일부 통제 할 수 있다. 우선, 편향적 성격 증거에 대해서는 공판정에서 반대 성격 증거를 제시하도록 하여 그 효과를 방지하는 방법이 있다. 나아가, 위법수집증거배제 법리에 있어 예외 요건에 대한 증명을 조금 더 엄격하게 요구하는 것과 같은 개선을 도모해 볼 수 있다. 이뿐만 아니라, 동기식 인지의 편향을 회피할 수 있는 형사 절차를 구성하는 것 또한 대안이 될 수 있다. 무엇보다, 동기식 인지 편향이 있는 배심을 선정절차에서 질의응답을 통해 파악하고 기피할 수 있다. 또한, 가능하면 형사절차는 합의부로 구성하거나 동기식 인지를 이유로 단독판사에 대한 회피 내지 배척이 가능하도록 하여 한 판사의 편향이 재판 결과를 좌우하지 않도록 해야 한다. 게다가, 오랫동안 주장되어온 것이기는 하지만 유·무죄 심리절차와 양형절차가 분리되어야 관련성 없는 정보들이 유·무죄 판단에 개입되는 것을 막을 수 있다는 제안도 동기식 인지 현상에 비추어 보면 더욱 절실하다고 할 수 있다. 그렇지만, 동기식 인지 현상에 대응하는 형사법 제도의 개선방안의 제시는 그렇게 간단하지만은 않다. 예를 들어, 케이한은 정당방위 상황과 관련해 집단적·문화적 정체성에 따라 사실관계에 대한 판단이 달라지는 현상에 대해 현재로서는 효과적인 대응방안이 없다고 단언한다. 케이한은 이러한 동기식 인지는 법판단자가 선의로 공정한 판단을 하기 위해 노력하는 것과 완전히 별개로 이루어지는 심리적 현상이 아니라고 했다. 이렇게 되면, 형사절차 참가자들이 과연 법적 원칙과 기준을 이성적이고 합리적으로 활용하고 적용하는 존재인지에 대한 의문은 피할 수 없어 보인다. 어쩌면 합리적 이성의 능력을 우리 스스로 지나치게 과대평가하지 않는 것이 보다 나은 해결책으로 가는 실마리가 아닐까라고 생각해 본다. The phenomenon of motivated cognition that happens in decision makers in criminal law is the psychological pattern of controlling and leading rational reasoning. This psychological concept shows that the method of consequentialism that is not very welcomed is widespread and even unavoidable. Moreover, the consequentialism regarding motivated cognition is related with the ideologies or the group identities, which do not have any relevance of legal issues. Also, it works unconsciously. The motivated cognition is not a firm ground that makes legal decision maker totally subject to determinative causation but is not a concept of explaining about total free-will of our capacity. To cope with motivated cognition, some countermeasures can be suggested. The participants of criminal process, such as jurors and judges, can consciously understand motivated cognition and reduce the effect of it. It means that jury instruction, arguments, expert testimony, education can reduce the effect of the bias. Moreover, the reformation of standards and methods of submitting evidence can get rid of the effect of motivated cognition. Most of all, against one-sided biased character evidence, the opposite side’s character evidence can be submitted. In addition, we can require the stricter proof of exceptional requirements of the exclusionary rule. Besides, the construction of bias-free process can be another option. The preemptory strike against biased jurors will be an alternative choice by a counsel. Simultaneously, the legal means to avoid a judge who has a serious motivated cognition should be constructed. To deter baised sentencing informations from being heard in a guilty trial, the bifurcation between guilty and sentencing process is seriously asked for. Nontheless, providing the countermeasures against motivated cognition for the criminal justice system is not so simple. For example, Dan Kahan assures that we don’t have any effective means to cope with the phenomenon, that the determination will be different depending on the identity based on a group or a culture. Kahan argues that motivated cognition is not the process that is made in completely different mode from the fair effort of good-faith. Also, even though there happens motivated cognition, it is hard to tell that it is wrong. If this difficulty is true, we cannot avoid the suspicion of if individuals who participates in a criminal process can rationally and reasonably use and apply legal principles and standards. Probably, trying not to exaggerate the capacity of rational reason may be the first step toward a better solution.

노동쟁의행위의 업무방해죄 성립의 불법구조 -위력 요건에 대한 대법원 판결의 비판적 분석을 중심으로-

강우예 ( Woo Ye Kang ) 한국비교형사법학회 2015 비교형사법연구 Vol.17 No.4

근래 대법원은 쟁의행위가 업무방해죄의 위력 요건에 해당하기 위해서는 ‘전격성’ 및 ‘사업운영의 혼란과 대규모 손해’가 발생해야 한다고 일관되게 판시해왔다. 자유를 침해하는 범죄로서의 업무방해죄의 불법요소는 매우 독특한 형태를 지니게 되었다. 위력 업무방해죄가 쟁의행위로 사용자 측에 발생할 수 있는 사업상의 혼란과 대규모 손해를 방지하는 내용을 지녔다는 점을 분명히 한 것이다. 이러한 대법원의 논리에 따르면, 근로자들은 자신들에게 부여된 헌법의 단체행동권을 행사하기 위하여 준법투쟁을 한다고 하더라도 사용자에게 대규모의 손해를 갑작스럽게 발생시키면 처벌된다는 매우 이상한 상황에 처하게 된다. 본고는 업무방해죄의 성질에서부터 출발했다. 즉, 업무방해죄가 위험범, 구체적 위험범 혹은 침해범인지에 따라 그 불법 구조에 일정부분 차이가 난다. 업무방해죄의 위력 요건에 해당하는지 여부를 판단할 때에는 행위자의 행위 자체의 불법성을 판단할 수 있는 요소들을 우선적으로 고려해야 한다. 즉, 자유를 침해하는 범죄이자 위험범으로서의 업무방해죄의 특징을 적절히 살릴 수 있는 해석론이 있어야 한다. 이를 위해서는 쟁의행위의 업무방해죄의 성립여부 판단 시 결과반가치에 보다 집중하는 대법원의 접근법을 극복할 필요가 있다. 쟁의행위에 적용되는 업무방해죄의 위력 요건은 유형적·다의적 접근법에 따라 가변적으로 활용되어야 독립적인 처벌규정으로서의 가치를 지닐 수 있다. 명백히 기업파산 내지 산업붕괴와 같은 파괴적 동기하에 혹은 근로조건과 전혀 관계없는 순수한 정치적 목적의 파업을 하거나, 폭행, 협박, 허위사실 유포 혹은 노무제공 거부로 인한 중대한 위험발생 가능성(가스누출, 폭발, 화재, 방사능유출, 등)과 같이 그 자체로 위법성이 짙은 수단으로 쟁의행위를 하거나, 중대한 노동법령의 위반행위가 있은 경우, 등의 요소들을 개별 사건별로 적절한 방식으로 고려하여 허용될 수 없는 위력의 행사인지를 판단해야 한다. 표면적으로 준법투쟁을 한다고 하더라도 기업파산과 같은 파괴적 동기나 근로조건과 전혀 관계없는 정치적 목적 하에 행하는 파업의 경우 정당성과 상당성을 상실한 위력이라고 보아야 한다. 나아가, 설령 사업에 대규모 손해가 발생하지 않았다고 하더라도 사업주와 관련된 허위사실 유포 등 그 자체로 명백히 위법한 수단을 통하여 근로자들을 집단적으로 선동하여 파업한 경우 업무방해죄에 해당한다고 보아야 한다. 반대로, 대규모 손해로 귀결된 파업이라고 할지라도 목적, 동기, 수단, 기간, 법령준수 등에 명백한 위법성이 발견되지 않는 경우라고 하면 업무방해죄의 구성요건해당성 조차 없는 것으로 보아야 한다. 결론적으로, 헌법의 단체행동권이 가하는 압력이 형법 제314조 제1항의 업무방해죄를 구성하는 불법요소에 고루 미치도록 하는 것이 적절한 해석론이다. Since 2011, the Korean supreme court has required additional factors such as ‘electric shock`` and ‘a great mess and a vast scale of loss in business`` to apply the force element of the business obstruction crime to labor strike. The structure of unlawful factor for the business obstruction crime come to hold an unique form. The court`s decisions seem to have clarified that the business obstruction crime with force may have intention to prevent a great mess or a vast scale of loss in business. Following this reasons, workers who does work-to rule struggle to exercise their constitutional right could be subject to criminal punishment when their strike caused a large scale of loss and damage in business. The force element of the business obstruction crime in Korean Criminal Code that applies to labor strikes should be understood to have polysemantic and multi-elemental characteristics. In such forms, the business obstruction crime could retain independent value as a category of crime that violates a person`s freedom. A labor strike with a motive of business bankruptcy and industry collapse or with purely political purpose, with means of assault, threat, disseminating false information or possibility of grave danger, or with violations of laber law for the protection of substantial interests of persons protected, etc should be individually considered to determine whether the labor strike constitute the unlawful exercise of force for the meaning of the business obstruction crime. Even facially lawful forms of labor strike should be seen as unlawful exercise of force when it comes to a motive of business bankruptcy or a purely political purpose without reference to enhancement of labor conditions. Moreover, even though there did not occur a large scale of damages, the means of labor strike, which is unlawful in itself, such as dissemination of false facts, should be punished based on the provision of the business obstruction crime. In contrast, even though there occurred a large scale of damages, the labor strike without unlawful motive, purpose, means, length of time, law abidance does not constitute the force element of the business obstruction crime. In conclusion, the pressure from the workers` right of collective action in Korean Constitution should be evenly and adequately applied to unlawfulness factors of the business obstruction crime.

대법원 양형기준의 동기요소에 대한 분석

강우예 ( Wu Ye Kang ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.3

A motive of a criminal act is a factor that, though it is not contained in criminalelements, can be considered to determine blameworthiness of a criminal act. Koreansupreme court’s use of ‘motive’ factor to construct sentencing guidelines of every groupof crimes seems appropriate. Also, the way korean supreme court is using motive factorscan be understood as innovation. Nonetheless, reflecting on the current form andstructure of korean sentencing guidelines, reformation of the guidelines is necessary. Because korean sentencing guidelines classified sentencing factors into three categoriesfollowing degrees and qualifications of factors, its’propriety should be reviewed andexamined at this point. In fact, the structure which the guidelines have is far away fromthe conventional and typical way of consideration of sentencing factors. A ‘motive’ is not a criminal element and does not have a formal structure. Moreover,a motive may come from an unconscious state of mind under which a criminal actor didnot realize it by himself. To prove a motive factor is much more difficult than to provecriminal elements, such as intention or negligence. Assessing a motive is so difficultbased on its various values that become different according to cases. To understand amotive in a case, a large variety of information regarding circumstances of that case andalso even many relevant facts of a defendant’s life should be gathered. It can become outside of a defendant’s control and responsibility. A motive factor is much more flexible and can have more various meanings in therethan a purpose element. Nevertheless, motives come to possess posited forms in koreansentencing guidelines. Each level of a motive factor that has a power to determine aparticular scope of punishment should be more examined. At least, a motive should bea sentencing factor which has its meaning within statutory requirements. In conclusion, a motive factor that is posited in korean sentencing guidelines shouldbe reviewed and reformed. Korean sentencing guidelines arbitrarily overuse motivefactors without any standards and principles. Intolerable contradictions amongdefinitions of motive factors in the guidelines often appear. Even, a definition of a motivefactor in the guidelines is in violation of statutory definitions. It is suspicious in whichprinciples a motive factor has its place in the structure of the guidelines. That is, it isdifficult to acknowledge consistency and propriety of distribution and definition ofmotive factors. Most of all, it comes from the fact that korean sentencing guidelines arenot formed with a good form and structure for appropriate sentencing.

유엔 국제조직범죄 금융제재제도의 국내화에 대한 비판적 고찰

강우예 ( Wu Ye Kang ) 법조협회 2014 法曹 Vol.63 No.7

This Article deals with analyses of UN conventions and resolutions that contain financial sanctions against UN organized crimes. Especially, it pays attention to the fact that the newly developed financial sanctions was incorporated into our system. That is, the system of freezing assets, lowering down the burden of proof, designation will be analyzed. What should be noted is that the current anti-money laundering law system has not been seriously questioned. As a matter of fact, the UN conventions has fundamentally shifted korean forfeiture system. The system of freezing assets has been applied to a wide range of crimes. For organized crimes, crimes of public offices, crimes of public elections, shift of burden of proof is provided. The United Nations`` past-years financial sanctions could be classified as three basic area. For example, the United Nations placed financial sanctions on particular activities. Also, the United Nations sanctions wrongdoing actors. In addition, there are the United Nations` sanctions on a certain country. Recently, the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the UN resolutions against weapons of mass destruction are incorporated into our financial sanction system. The financial sanctions against terrorists and proliferators are about harsh retribution to stigmatized persons far beyond effective deterence to the international organized crimes. They have started to appear on the United Nations` resolutions and FATF`s recommendations, guidance and reports. This comprises not simply a measure of freezing, but also a criminal sanction of forfeiture. It lead to cracking foundation of our criminal justice system. The United Nations conventions and resolutions do not simply means that it applies to organized crimes. Rather, they may transform anti-money laundering system fundamentally. In fact, the experience regarding anti-money laundering law against drug cartels contributed to forming the model of the currently well-established international as well as national anti-money laundering laws. The United States are the starting point of the real-name financial system, current system of forfeiture, designation system. The United States has long developed the current systems because of the urgent reason to cope with drug cartels of Latin America. This is used not only by the United States but also by International Organizations such as the UN to strike down international terrorists activities right after the 9/11 terrorism.