양형위원회의 양형기준안에 대한 비판적 고찰 = Critical review on the Sentencing Guidelines of Sentencing Committee

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently with the highlight on the importance of sentencing phase in the criminal trial, many imbalance and inappropriate sentences were raised and attracted social attention. An unfair sentencing deviation and a
paternalistic judicial decision as a part of the judicial reform raised a discussion about the sentencing guidelines. Recently there has been a big change in making a sentencing guideline organized by the Sentencing
Committee. By the reform of the Supreme Courts of Judicature Acts, the Sentencing Committee was founded in May 2007. The Sentencing Committee, based on experiential approach method to the actual sentencing verdict, added a normative adjustment to sentencing verdict to 8 crimes which are homicide· sex·bribe·robbery·usurpation·malpractice·perjury·false accusation and a sentencing guideline of those crimes was made in priority and a public hearing was executed. The sentencing guideline of the Sentencing Committee takes example of the British model and by complementing its defect, they establish an independent sentencing guidelines for individual crime types. They draw out the sentencing argument for each crime types and according to the argument, they make
a decision on the sentence range and this has an advisory effect.
But looking back at the point where the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee are going to be presented, it’s a shame that the foundation of Sentencing Committee and basis set of the sentencing guidelines are not being approved by the sentencing guidelines standards but by the Supreme Courts of Judicature Acts, that it’s insufficient to solve the sentencing guidelines gap due to the big sentence range problems of the sentencing guidelines and that there’s no mandatory effect in the sentencing guidelines.
Even though the sentencing guidelines are insufficient, the Sentencing Committee’s activity making research and effort during these two short years in order to solve the examination of an offence in South Korea is unbelievable. Not many privileges were granted to the Sentencing Committee and regardless the difficulty to reflect in the sentencing guidelines due to the problems in the criminal justice policy itself, it’s a great thing that the Sentencing Committee still prepared appropriate sentencing guidelines for South Korea and made a sentencing reform. I hope that with the sentencing guidelines of the eight types of crimes will be the start to obtain an appropriate and equal examination of an offence and correct the basis of criminal justice.
For this, the regulations of the Sentencing Committee related with the basis establishment of the Sentencing Committee and the sentencing guidelines should be established as a law and more rights should be granted to the Sentencing Committee and when setting up the sentencing guidelines, the limited normative problems should be solved through the improvement of the criminal justice regulations so that the sentencing guidelines can have the legitimacy. The Sentencing Committee should also arrange the sentencing guidelines of other crimes than these 8 types of crimes. And they should keep paying attention whether the judicial decision has been correctly made after the sentencing guidelines came into effect, by looking through the sentencing guidelines data analysis and in case of problems, they should have a system to complement it.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 우리나라 양형상의 문제점
• Ⅲ. 양형위원회의 양형기준안
• Ⅳ. 양형기준안의 문제점
• Ⅴ. 양형기준안의 보완
• Ⅵ. 결론
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 하태훈, "量刑의 合理化 方案" 한국비교형사법학회 6 (6): 19-32, 2004

2 정미화, "횡령·배임범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문"

3 김신규, "형법총론(초판)" 청목출판사 594-, 2009

4 배종대, "형법총론(제9개정판)" 홍문사 791-, 2008

5 이재상, "형법총론(제5판 보정판)" 박영사 559-, 2005

6 정성근, "형법총론(제4판)" 대경문화사 661-, 2008

7 김성돈, "형법총론(제2판)" 성균관대학교 출판부 778-, 2009

8 권오걸, "형법총론(제2판 수정판)" 형설출판사 740-, 2007

9 오영근, "형법총론(보정판)" 박영사 713-, 2007

10 정영일, "형법총론(개정판)" 박영사 487-, 2007

11 임웅, "형법총론(개정판 제2보정)" 법문사 592-, 2008

12 정웅석, "형법강의(제7판 2쇄)" 대명출판사 749-, 2007

13 이천현, "형벌의 본질과 목적-양형기준과 관련하여"

14 한겨레신문, "향판 출신 변호사의 특혜"

15 이영란, "한국형법학(개정판)" 숙명여대 출판부 566-, 2003

16 김영종, "위증·무고범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문"

17 이호중, "우리나라에 적합한 양형기준제" 양형위원회 45-46, 2008

18 손철우, "우리나라 양형현황에 관한 기초보고"

19 하명호, "우리나라 양형의 문제점과 그 합리화방안-독일과 비교 및 우리나라의 실무를 중심으로" 2 : 97-, 2005

20 이호중, "우리나라 양형의 문제점-양형기준 설정시 검토가 필요한 양형시스템의 문제점을 중심으로-"

21 이주형, "우리나라 양형관행의 일반적 문제점"

22 양형위원회, "연간보고서 2007" 양형위원회 178-, 2008

23 손동권, "양형합리화를 위한 기초로서의 법률상 형가감체계" 한국형사정책연구원 18 (18): 399-420, 2007

24 법원행정처, "양형적정화방안 모색을 위한 토론회 결과 보고서" 법원행정처 190-, 1995

25 최석윤, "양형의 합리화 방안" (12) : 278-, 1999

26 최석윤, "양형에 대한 기초적 이해" 8 (8): 279-, 1997

27 윤재윤, "양형에 관한 몇 가지 생각과 제안"

28 임동규, "양형심리절차의 합리화" 41 : 326-, 2005

29 곽병훈, "양형심리의 충실화를 위한 몇가지 방안"

30 양형위원회, "양형기준안"

31 최석윤, "양형기준설정과 관련된 몇 가지 고려사항" 한국비교형사법학회 10 (10): 71-97, 2008

32 이천현, "양형관련규정의 정비방안" 한국형사정책연구원 79-80, 2006

33 이윤상, "성범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문"

34 김현철, "살인범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문"

35 이민식, "살인범들의 양형에 영향을 미치는 요인" 한국형사정책연구원 17 (17): 183-218, 2006

36 김혜정, "사법개혁추진위원회의 양형제도개선안에 관한 검토" 11 (11): 100-, 2005

37 박기석, "법정형의 문제점과 정비방안" 한국형사정책연구원 18 (18): 377-398, 2007

38 임영철, "법관의 양형의식" 5 (5): 43-, 1994

39 이광수, "배임범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문"

40 오영근, "바람직한 양형기준의 방식" 한국형사정책연구원 20 (20): 347-370, 2009

41 서울신문, "대법원의 심리불속행 기각률"

42 한상희, "뇌물범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문"

43 신현호, "뇌물범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문"

44 손동권, "강도범죄 양형기준안 지정토론문"

45 조의연, "21세기 한국의 집행유예제도 - 현상과 문제점, 그리고 개선방안-" 한국형사정책연구원 17 (17): 577-608, 2006