우리나라 양형위원회 양형인자의 도출의 문제점 및 개선방향 : 협의의 양형인자를 중심으로 = Issues and Solution Approaches in Producing Sentencing Factors by the Korean Sentencing Commission

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In order to correct the irrationality of the sentencing practices, to reflect constructive common sense of the public in sentencing, and to realize just and objective sentencing that the public can trust, the Sentencing Commission, established in 2007, based on focused endeavor, passion and dedication, adopted detailed guidelines on sentencing adults (aged 19 or more) for murder, bribery, sex crimes, robbery, embezzlement, malpractice, perjury and false incrimination, which are applied to crimes prosecuted after the first of July 2009. The second Sentencing Commission is discussing establishment of sentencing guidelines for fraud, document forgery, theft, abduction, food and healthcare related crimes, drug crimes, and obstruction of justice. Sentencing guideline system adopted by the current Sentencing Commission produces different sentencing factors depending on offenses, since it follows the individual, narrative approach of the UK guideline, rather than the grid-style American guideline that covers all crimes. However, such system results in a very complicated sentencing guideline. It is more troubling that the identical sentencing factors are assessed differently depending on crime cases. For example, while “a person's participation in crime activities due to coercion or threat by others”is a factor that can reduce sentence, the current sentencing guideline applies this factor only to theft and embezzlement, excluding murder and bribery. Objectivity of a sentencing guideline will lose its meaning if the factors that produce concrete sentence are inconsistent. Even the best written laws and punishments can ruin the principle of legality, the last bastion of public freedom, if their components are unclear. On this wise, consistent sentencing factors are key to sustaining validity of sentencing guidelines. While establishing objective and fair guidelines for sentencing proves validity of the sentencing method, reviewing rationality of sentencing factors will prove validity of the results of sentencing. Against this backdrop, this study seeks to solve the issues of inconsistent sentencing factors under the current guideline system. Pursuit of fairness and objectivity in sentencing is not an empty call for utopian ideal, but is a foundation for achieving a practical ideal of realizing constitutional justice for the public and creating an integrated venue for human-centered dialogue of mutual respect.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 우리나라 양형인자 도출의 문제점
• Ⅱ. 규범적 관점에서 현 양형인자의 상호모순을 해결 방안 모색
• Ⅲ. 복합적 행위 책임에 근거한 현 양형위원회의 양형인자 도출의 개선 방향
• Ⅳ. 결론

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정철호, "형법 제51조 양형의 조건" 비교형사법학회 2002

2 이진국, "행위자의 범행전후의 태도와 양형책임" (29) : 2001

3 승재현, "합리적인 양형을 위한 양형 조사 방안 - 양형 조사 주체 및 소속기관을 중심으로 -" 법조협회 59 (59): 98-151, 2010

4 이주형, "최초의 양형기준에 대한 비판적 고찰, In 형사법의 신동향" 대검찰청 2009

5 승재현, "우리나라 양형위원회 양형기준모델의 타당성 평가" 법조협회 59 (59): 87-135, 2010

6 최석윤, "양형의 형벌이론적 기초와 합리화 방안" 고려대학교 1997

7 승재현, "양형의 규범적 판단 근거와 합리적인 양형기준방안에 관한 연구" 한국외국어 대학교 2009

8 박형관, "양형위원회 운영방식에 대한 비교법적 고찰" 법조협회 56 (56): 5-61, 2007

9 방희선, "양형기준제와 양형위원회 도입방안 연구" 법부부 2010

10 이상원, "성범죄 양형기준안 지정 토론문" 양형기준안에 관한 제1차 공청회 2008

11 김일수, "바람직한 양형조사 주체 및 조사방식에 관한 연구" 대검찰청 2009

12 최석윤, "규범적 관점에 의한 양형요소의 추출"

13 "각급 법원의 주요 범죄 유형별 양형기준"

14 原田国男, "量刑判断の実際" 立花書房 2003

15 坪井祐子, "第三者の落ち度が量刑に及ぼす影響" (1223) : 2007

16 城下裕二, "求刑量刑をめぐる理論的課題" (創刊) : 1995

17 城下裕二, "求刑 · 量刑をめぐる理論的課題" (創刊) : 1995

18 Frisch, "Über die Bewertungsrichtung von Strafzumessungstatsachen" 1989

19 Hörnle, "Tatpropotionale Strafzumessung" 1999

20 Erhard, "Strafzumessung bei Vorbestraften unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Strafzumessungsschuld" 1992

21 Schönke, "Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar, 25. Aufl." 1997

22 Henkel, "Strafempfindlichkeit und Strafempfänglichkeit des Angeklagten als Strafzumessungsgründe" 1970

23 Schäfer, "Praxis der Strafzumessung, 2. Aufl" 1995

24 Streng, "Mittelbare Strafwirkungen und Strafzumessung" 1988

25 Frisch, "Gegenwärtiger Zustand und Zukunftsperspektiven der Strafzumessungsdogmatik" 1987

26 Bruns, "Das Recht der Strafzumessung, 2. Aufl." 1985

27 Hettinger, "Das Doppelverwertungsverbot bei strafrahmenbildenen Umständen" 1982

28 Maurach, "Allgemeiner Teil, 1. Teilband, 8. Aufl." 1992

29 김현석, "13세 미만 대상 성범죄 양형기준 검토 보고" 양형위원회 2009