현행 형사소송법에 나타난 범죄피해자 보호정책에 관한 연구

오경식(Oh, Kyung-Sik) 한국피해자학회 2009 被害者學硏究 Vol.17 No.1

This research looked at the victim protection policy of the current criminal procedre. The new direction of the victim protection policy is a historical change and should be settled stably. The current law does have much considerations for the victims, but has some unsolved problems of victim's right to make statements in court. The underlying goal of the current criminal procedre is to find out the truth and protect the victim. It is the duty of the nation to carry out this goal, the reason it has introduced the current criminal procedure. But because this is far from perfect, the nation must strive to make it better. This paper will discuss both the passive and the active position of the victim. It will also look at the victim protection policies in each levels of the criminal action. Specifically, this paper will look at the victim protection policy in the criminal investigation and prosecution and the limitations of the policy in the public trial. In conclusion, the current criminal procedure has clear limitations. Effort is needed to improve the victim protection policy.

제6회 한,중 형법 국제 학술심포지움 : 한국의 회복적(回復的) 소년사법(少年司法)에 관한 연구

오경식 ( Kyung Sik Oh ) 한국비교형사법학회 2008 비교형사법연구 Vol.10 No.2

여신전문금융업법상에 나타난 신용카드범죄에 대한 고찰

오경식(Kyung Sik Oh) 한국형사정책학회 1998 刑事政策 Vol.10 No.-

N/A

공정거래법상 범칙조사권의 강제성 부여 방안에 대한 연구

오경식 ( Kyung Sik Oh ) 한국비교형사법학회 2007 비교형사법연구 Vol.9 No.2

한국과 독일의 신용카드범죄의 실태와 대책에 관한 비교연구

오경식(Kyung Sik Oh) 한국형사정책학회 1996 刑事政策 Vol.8 No.-

N/A

명예훼손과 온라인서비스제공자의 형사책임

오경식(Oh, Kyung Sik),황태정(Hwang, Tae Jeong),이정훈(Lee, Jung Hoon) 한국형사정책학회 2010 刑事政策 Vol.22 No.1

Considering great social influence of Internet and other information and communication networks these days, On-line Service Provider(OSP) should be responsible for illegal activities regarding its information and communication service when it does not take proper actions against the illegal activities despite acknowledgement. This paper examined OSP's civil liability and criminal liability from point of view of the Criminal Act. As a result, OSP's criminal liability shall be limited to ‘aiding and abetting by omission’ only when OSP's access and control against illegal contents are objectively admitted. Despite aforementioned legal theory, OSP's criminal responsibility of others' defamation on information and communication networks shall be prudently admitted. This is because OSP's admission of criminal responsibility can reinforce regulations on OSP's information and communication services to give chilling effects and to be likely to weakenfreedom of expression that is basic rights of the Constitution. Therefore, the obligation of caution can cognize infringement upon others' legal interests caused by posts of evident illegality, and it should be limitedly admitted within specific scope that can be controlled. Defamation not only being illegal activities of the Civil Law but also being crimes of the Criminal Law have a lot of common factors, and conditions of criminal responsibility are stricter than the ones of civil responsibility are: Considering such a fact, when OSP's criminal responsibility based on others' defamation on Internet is decided, conditions of civil responsibility that have been recently suggested by civil judgment (2008DA53812) shall be minimum conditions that can admit of criminal responsibility.

내사와 수사의 구별기준에 대한 고찰 - 대법원 2001. 10. 26. 선고 2000도2968 판결을 중심으로 -

오경식(Oh, Kyung Sik) 대검찰청 2012 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.34

인권침해나 사건의 은폐를 방지하고 투명한 사건처리절차를 확보하기 위해서 내사와 수사는 범죄인지서 또는 범죄인지보고서를 작성하는 형식적인 절차에 의해서 구별되어서는 안되며, 실질적으로 수사에 착수하였다고 볼 수 있는 때에는 범죄인지서 또는 범죄인지보고서를 작성하기 전이라도 이미 수사에 착수하였다고 보아야 한다. 결론적으로 정리하면 본 사건 대법원의 입장과 마찬가지로 범죄의 인지는 실질적인 개념이고, 범죄의 혐의가 있다고 보아 수사를 개시하는 행위를 한 때에는 범죄를 인지한 것으로 보아야 하고, 그 뒤 범죄인지서를 작성하여 사건수리 절차를 밟은 때에 비로소 범죄를 인지하였다고 볼 것이 아니며, 이러한 인지절차를 밟기 전에 수사를 하였다고 하더라도, 그 수사가 장차 인지의 가능성이 전혀 없는 상태하에서 행해졌다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 인지절차가 이루어지기 전에 수사를 하였다는 이유만으로 그 수사가 위법하다고 볼 수는 없고, 따라서 그 수사과정에서 작성된 피의자신문조서나 진술조서 등의 증거능력도 이를 부인할 수 없다는 판시를 하고 있어서 범죄인지서를 작성하기 전즉 내사단계라도 수사가 가능하며 이를 수사의 범위로 인정한다는 입장으로 실질설을 견지하고 있다. 즉, 본건은 대법원이 내사와 수사의 구별 기준에 있어 실질설이 타당하다는 것을 명시적으로 판시한 매우 의미 있는 판결로서 내사의 범위와 그 의미에 대한 기준점이되는 판결이라 평가할 수 있다. 내사의 범위와 수사지휘와의 관계에 대한 형사소송법 제196조의 개정과 대통령령이 제정되었으나 서로 모순적인 규정과 모호한 규정으로 인권침해가능성이 제기되고 있다. 형소법 제196조는 모든 수사에 관하여 사법경찰관은 검사의 지휘를 받는다고 하고있으나, 대통령령에서는 이를 구체적으로 규정해야 하는데 오히려 형소법 규정을 구체화시키지 못하고 판례와 학설의 해석에 의존하도록 하여 실무적으로 더 혼란을 야기하고있다. 사법경찰의 통제라는 불필요한 논란의 소지를 야기한 대통령령이라 할 수 있으므로 형사소송법의 취지대로 대통령령을 다시 개정되어야 한다. In order to prevent concealment of crime incidents and/or violation of human rights and to secure a transparent procedure of processing crimes, inquiry and investigation must not discriminate the perfunctory processes of crimerecognition report, and when investigation has practically begun consider the investigation to have begun regardless of reports. In accordance with the Supreme court’s position in the matter, recognition of crime is a realistic concept, and when investigation is conducted upon an assumption of charges the recognition of a crime is to be assumed, not until a report has been written along with the standard procedures. Even if investigation took place before the procedures, unless in the special case of the investigation having taken place without any possibilities of recognition, that it happened before recognition process is not unconstitutional thus any evidences obtained in that investigation cannot be ignored. This implies that any inquiry investigation is possible and is to be considered a part of the investigation scope. In conclusion, this case provides a standard of the scope of inquiry and its meaning, and expresses the reasonableness of practicality in the inquiry and the investigation.

권리로서의 피해자진술권 확보 방안

오경식(Oh, Kyung Sik) 한국피해자학회 2016 被害者學硏究 Vol.24 No.1

Victim’s position in criminal procedure is only the role as evidence in criminal justice agencies. The crime victim’s right is the constitutional right, the Constitution of the Republic of Korea §27⑤. Article 27, paragraph (5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees a victim of crime the right to give a statement during trial proceedings. Article 294-2, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act specifies this constitutional right: “The court shall, upon receiving a petition from a victim of a crime or his/her legal representative (including his/her spouse, lineal relative, sibling, if the victim is dead), admit such victim as witness for examination.” Despite these provisions, a victim’s right to give such statements during trial proceedings has not been substantially realized in the Korean criminal justice procedure. But the right of crime victim can not be actually realized by criminal procedure law. The crime victim’s right should be always protect during the judicial proceedings. In the Constitution law §27⑤ and criminal procedure law §294-2, victim statement as victim’s right is regulated but insufficient to realize. The Constitution of the Republic of Krea §27⑤ guarantees a victim of crime the right to give a statement during trial proceedings. I would like to propose amendment of criminal procedure on victim statement as victim’s right.

학교폭력예방을 위한 법제도적 분석과 개선방안

오경식 ( Oh Kyung-sik ) 한국소년정책학회 2009 少年保護硏究 Vol.12 No.-

The Law for the Prevention of School Violence, originally a law concerning school violence, has changed quite a bit from its original form. School violence related cases should be resolved by this law. But due to some problems, many of such cases were, in the end, resolved by civil law compensation or criminal law. There are several measures that must be taken to improve this law. For instance, the definition of school violence must be made more coherent. And amendments to ensure the protection of the victims and reeducation of the offender are needed: a program, along with the support of specialists, to reconcile the involved students and make better citizens out of them is in due. Finally, the essence of this law must be the victim student's protection and both their physical and psychological treatment. The student's right to choose to have a councilor must be similarly ensured.

일수벌금형제도의 도입방안에 대한 제언

오경식(Oh, Kyung-Sik) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2013 法學論叢 Vol.20 No.2

현행 형법의 벌금형은 총액벌금형제도로서 범죄인의 불법과 책임을 정확하게 액수로 산정할 수 없다는 문제점과 벌금총액의 산정에 범죄인의 빈부차를 고려할 수 없어 가난한 자에게는 대체자유형의 집행으로 단기자유형으로의 전환을 강제하고, 부자에게는 형벌의 목적을 달성할 수 없다는 여러 문제점 등이 제기된다. 총액벌금형제도의 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 다음의 논거에 의해 일수벌금형제도의 도입을 제안한다. 첫째, 불법과 책임이 동일한 행위를 일수로 산정하고 일수정액을 평가할 때 행위자의 경제적 능력 등을 고려함으로써, 법관의 양형과정에서 발생되는 자의적 판단을 배제함으로써 양형상의 격차를 최소화할 수 있다. 둘째, 형사사법제도의 신뢰증진의 측면에서 경제적 능력에 적합한 벌금형을 부과함으로써 실질적으로 동등한 형벌효과와 목적을 달성할 수 있고 대체자유형의 집행가능성을 감소시킴으로써 단기자 유형의 폐해로부터 벌금미납자를 보호할 수 있게 된다. 셋째, 벌금형 노역장유치처분을 폐지함에 따라 자유형 또는 사회봉사명령으로 대체할 수 있는 기준을 제시할 수 있게 된다. 법제정당시와 여러 가지 경제 상황의 변화(예: 부동산실명제, 금융실명제 등)에 의해 경제적 정보 수집이 비약적으로 발전됨에 따라 도입의견이 바람직하다는 결론이 제시되었다. 넷째, 단기자유형의 폐해를 최소화하는데 도움이 될 수 있으며, 벌금형 미납시의 환형유치에 대한 기준을 명확하게 제시할 수 있다. 다섯째, 일수벌금형제도는 집중적 보호관찰, 전자감시에 의한 가택구금, 일일보고센터, 약물남용 치료센터 입원 및 통원 등 여타의 중간적 제재들에 비하여 운영비가 비교적 저렴하며, 일수벌금이 단기자유형을 대체하는 만큼 귀하고도 값비싼 자원인 교도소, 구치소, 보호관찰 자원을 공공의 안전에 더 큰 위험을 초래하는 범죄자에 사용할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 여섯째, 일수벌금제도를 실시하면 현실적으로 경제상황에 맞게 벌금형을 선고하므로 더 많은 벌금 수입이 발생하며, 벌금형 집행절차와 관련하여 감독에 많은 비용이 절감되게 된다. 또한 일수벌금형제도의 도입을 전제로 총론적 개정입법론을 제시하고자 한다. The sum total fine penalty system, which is the monetary penalty system of the existing criminal law, faces controversy that a criminal’s illegality and responsibility cannot be computed at an accurate sum. Also because the criminal’s financial status is not considered, when substitute imprisonment is enforced, the poor are forced to choose short term imprisonment while the rich do not receive enough punishment. The imposition of the “day fine system” is desirable to solve the problems of the sum total fine penalty system for the following arguments. First, “day fine system” serves as a reasonable monetary penalty system. When imposing legal liability as a result of illegality, the wrongdoer’s financial status is considered. As a result, a judge’s arbitrary decision is avoided, minimizing the gap of punishments. Second, the criminal justice system develops trust through giving out equal effects of punitive action. Furthermore, the rate of enforcing substitute imprisonment declines, which helps protect fine defaulters from negative effects of short term imprisonment. Third, “day fine system” presents a standard of shifting monetary penalty to either restriction of physical freedom or social service order as a result of abolishing imprisonment in workhouse. At the time of the legislation, changes in economic circumstances (e.g. the real-name property ownership system, the real-name financial transaction system) occurred. This made it easier to collect financial information, which is why “day fine system” would be a desirable imposition. Forth, the negative consequences of short term imprisonment can be avoided. When the degree of crime is high and the judge has a choice of sentencing imprisonment or monetary penalty, the judge has a tendency to sentence imprisonment. However “day fine system” reduces such tendency and expands the range of monetary penalties. This can help reduce negative effects of short term imprisonment and displays a clear standard when sentencing detention in labor house to fine defaulters. Fifth, the expense of “day fine system” is more reasonable compared to medium restrictions such as probation, custody through electronic surveillance, daily reporting centers, inpatient (outpatient) treatments in drug treatment centers etc. As this system substitutes short term imprisonments, criminals who are a larger threat to public safety can be committed to costly centers such as prisons, detention centers, and probation sources. Sixth, “day fine system” allows the judge to consider the economic situation when sentencing a monetary penalty, resulting in a larger sum of revenue. This reduces the expense of supervision. I suggest the amendment of law based on the imposition of the “day fine system”.