미국 연방양형기준 수정과정 고찰 : Fair Sentencing Act의 제정과 연방양형위원회의 역할을 중심으로

이재방 ( Lee Jae-bang ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2017 홍익법학 Vol.18 No.1

1984년 제정된 양형개혁법에 근거하여, 1987년 연방양형기준제도가 시행된 이후, 2010년 FSA(Fair Sentencing Act, 이하 FSA)가 도입되고, 관련 양형기준이 수차례 수정되었다. 이기간 동안 미국 연방양형위원회가 양형기준의 보완을 위해 어떤 역할을 하고 있는지를 살펴보기 위해, 농축코카인과 분말코카인 범죄의 형벌불균형을 수정해 나가는 과정을 살펴보았다. 1986년 Anti-Drug Abuse Act(반-마약남용법)에 근거한 농축코카인과 분말코카인의 마약용량에 따른 법정최저형의 불균형 비율은 `100대 1`이었으나, 2010년 FSA 제정으로 양자의 불균형비율은 `18대 1`의 비율로 축소되었다. FSA가 제정되기 이전 연방양형위원회는 수차례 의회에 농축코카인과 분말코카인의 형벌불균형 개선을 제안하였다. 아울러 동 기간 동안 연방대법원 역시 2005년 `Booker` 판결에 의해 연방양형기준을 권고적인 효력으로 만들었고, 2009년 `Spears v. US`에서는 지방법원이 농축코카인과 분말코카인 간 100대 1의 비율을 다른 비율로 대체할 수 있다는 판결을 함으로써, 농축코카인과 분말코카인 범죄간의 형벌불균형 개선의 장을 마련하였고, 결과적으로 FSA가 2010년 의회에서 통과되는데 기여하였다. 변화된 법조항에 맞게`마약량-범죄등급표`와 기본범죄등급이 하향 조정되는 등의 양형기준 수정과정을 조망함으로써, 양형의 불균형을 시정해 나가는 연방양형위원회의 역할을 살펴보았다. The United States federal sentencing guidelines(hereinafter `the guidelines`) have been revised steadily to seek proportionate sentencing since its first promulgation of 1987 under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act was enacted, which reduces the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine punishments. This article illuminates the United States Sentencing Commission`s(hereinafter `the Commission`) roles to revise the federal sentencing guidelines. To find out the Commission`s roles, the article reviews the processes of the revisions to reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine punishments. Under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the guidelines had to reflect 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio of crack to powder cocaine penalties and also set the sentencing ranges just above the minimum statutory penalties. These disparities were reduced to 18-to 1 ratio by introducing FSA in 2010. Since the enforcement of the guidelines, the Commission submitted four reports to the Congress that the disparity between crack and powder cocaine penalties be removed for proportionate sentencing consistency. And also the Supreme Court`s decision in the United States v. Booker in 2005 contributed to change the guidelines binding force as mandatory into advisory. The Commission`s recommendation in the reports and the Supreme Court`s related decisions after Booker made a constructive ground which finally led to the introduction of the FSA and related guidelines amendments. As a result, the Commission was able to change the `drug quantity table` pursuant to the FSA and to reduce the base offense levels of crack cocaine offenses by two levels in §2D.1.1, Guidelines Manual. Though the amendments to the Guidelines is not complete from the view of proportionate sentencing consistency, they are directing towards more proportionate consistency. Thus, the Commission is contributing to positive roles in the `development` of the federal sentencing guidelines.

법랑질 저형성증의 심미수복

이재방 ( Jae Bang Lee ) , 김종욱 ( Jong Uk Kim ) , 진철희 ( Cheul Hee Jin ) , 김문홍 ( Mun Hong Kim ) , 김종진 ( Jong Jin Kim ) , 최희영 ( Hee Young Choi ) 조선대학교 구강생물학연구소 2004 Oral Biology Research (Oral Biol Res) Vol.28 No.1

.

다양한 치경부 병소의 복합레진 수복

이재방 ( Jae Bang Lee ) , 박병철 ( Byung Cheol Park ) , 김종진 ( Jong Jin Kim ) , 진철희 ( Cheol Hee Jin ) , 김정호 ( Jeong Ho Kim ) , 유상훈 ( Sang Hoon Yoo ) , 김문홍 ( Mun Hong Kim ) 조선대학교 구강생물학연구소 2004 Oral Biology Research (Oral Biol Res) Vol.28 No.2

.

변호사의 직무상 책임과 윤리의 충돌

이재방 ( Lee Jae-bang ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2007 홍익법학 Vol.8 No.3

본고의 주제는 변호사의 공익적 지위에서 주어지는 진실의무와 의뢰인과의 신뢰관계 및 계약에 따른 비밀준수의무와의 충돌에서 야기되는 제 문제를 고찰함으로써, 변호사의 공익적 지위와 의뢰인에 대한 보호자적 지위에서 야기되는 변호사의 직업윤리를 보다 명확히 규명하는 데 있다. 변호사의 변호권 행사와 관련하여 `전문 직업인으로서의 역할`과 `윤리와 정의의 수호자로서의 역할` 간의 갈등에서 야기되는 문제와 관련해서 다음과 같이 정리할 수 있다. 첫째, 변호사에게 변호사 수임을 강제할 수 없다면, 선임 이후라도 정당한 이유가 있을 때 사임을 허용해야 한다. 둘째, 변호사는 일단 사건을 수임한 이상은 진실의무가 부여된 `공익적 지위`보다는 의뢰인의 `보호자로서의 지위`에 충실하되, 정의를 배반하면서까지 의뢰인에게 맹목적으로 충실한 것은 바람직하지 않다고 볼 수 있다. 셋째, 충분한 변론활동을 통한 변호인의 조력을 받기 위하여서는 변호인과 의뢰인 간의 대화 내용을 절대로 누설할 수 없다는 전제가 필요하므로, 그에 따라 변호인과 의뢰인 간의 비밀누설 금지의무가 마련되어 있다. 그러나 비밀준수의무를 절대적 의무로 보는 국가와 상대적 의무로 보는 국가가 있을 수 있는데, 절대적 의무보다는 상대적 의무로 보는 것이 바람직하고, 이 경우 비밀준수의무의 예외규정을 보다 명확한 규범으로 하기 위해 `공익상의 이유` 및 `자신의 권리를 위해 필요한 경우`에 대한 보다 명확한 기준과 `최소한의 범위`에 대한 한계를 제시할 필요가 있다. 이와 같은 변호사의 윤리문제는 형사사건 변호에 국한된 것이 아니라 변호사가 담당하는 모든 사건 분야에서 야기되는 문제이다. 변호사와 의뢰인 간의 관계에서 발생된 비밀준수의무에 대한 윤리상의 한계가 있어야 한다는 것은 명확하다. 이러한 한계를 보다 명확히 규명하는 `윤리적 기준`과 그 기준을 정당화해주는 `근본 가치`에 대한 사회적 합의가 필요함을 밝혀 보았다. The purpose of this paper is to illuminate issues come from conflicts between the lawyer`s legal profession and legal ethics and to propose the need for concrete ethical standard for solving the dilemma surrounding conflicts between lawyer`s public role and lawyer`s protector role. This paper shows three findings regarding the lawyer`s representation of his client. Firstly, lawyer`s rights to refuse the representation of his client should be granted when there is justifiable reason. Secondly, lawyer`s protector role for his client should hold dominant position over lawyer`s public role which is the role as seeking the substantial truth. And lastly, lawyer`s responsibility for confidentiality should be kept. However, there are legal regimes including Korea which recognize the exceptional cases for the lawyer`s confidentiality. For such exceptional circumstances which lawyers may reveal information, clear standards should be invented in the scope of keeping public purpose and protecting lawyer`s rights. And also the exception should be permitted in the boundary of minimum limits. The lawyer`s legal ethics should be applied to all areas of the law practices including lawyer`s client representation in criminal procedure. The paper reviews the ethical problems in criminal counsel including whether lawyers assert client`s innocent while he knows (or believes) the client are guilty, whether lawyers allow his client`s acceptance of his guilty even though the client is innocent, and etc. It is evident that there are concrete limits for the lawyer to keep up confidentiality principle. It is necessary to address concrete ethical standards and basic values which justify those ethical standards.

재판의 확정력과 이중위험금지에 따른 일사부재리의 객관적 효력 범위에 관한 연구

이재방 ( Jae Bang Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.1

The prohibition of Double Jeopardy in Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea is the effects originating from Res Judicata of final and conclusive judgements of criminal proceedings. In conjunction with Double Jeopardy of the Anglo-American law, the Article prescribes that the same offence should not be punished twice. However, under the lack of clear and articulated provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act, there are controversial views about permissible scope of the sameness of crime. On the decision criteria to acknowledge the same offence, the majority view is that the sameness of offence should be determined on the basis of the fact. This view permits a second time prosecution only when there are different incidents. While the court also decides the sameness of offence based upon the basic facts, it tends to limit the permissible scope of the same offence under the criteria of normative facts. So the court holds that the decision should be made not only just from social and pre-legal perspective but also from normative perspective. The court seems to be appropriate in the fact that it places more emphasis on realizing justice pursuant to substantive truth rather than protecting basic rights of defendant who might try to abuse defense rights in the final and conclusive judgment. However, the normative element adopted from precedents in deciding the sameness of basic facts lacks concrete and objective standard, which tends to lead into arbitrary judgements. Thus in conclusion, to rationally harmonize defendant`s rights and protection of justice, it is necessary to standardize the decision rule about the sameness of offence, the core content of Double Jeopardy. Suggesting the marginal concept concrete danger in the first judgement, the paper asserts that the scope of effects of double jeopardy should be limited.

차입매수행위와 배임죄의 성립

이재방 ( Jae Bang Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2012 홍익법학 Vol.13 No.1

기업을 인수하거나 합병하는 과정에서 순수한 자기자본만으로 인수자금을 마련하는 것은 현실적으로 어렵다. 따라서 인수자금의 일부는 타인의 돈을 차용하거나 제 3자의 투자를 유치하여 마련하는 것은 당연한 일이다. 그 중 차용금에 대한 담보로 피인수기업의 자산을 제공하기로 하고 인수자금을 대출받거나, 일단 차용금으로 기업을 인수한 후 피인수기업의 자산으로 그 인수차입금채무를 변제하려는 의도 아래 기업 인수를 감행하는 것을 차입에 의한 기업인수 혹은 차입매수라고 한다. 차입매수를 경영상 기법으로 인정하고 있는 미국에서는 이에 대하여 형사적으로 규율하기 보다는 민사적으로 규율함에 반하여, 우리 대법원은 “차입매수에 대하여 따로 규율하는 법률이 없는 이상 일률적으로 차입매수방식에 의한 기업인수를 주도한 관련자들에 대하여 배임죄가 성립한다거나 성립하지 아니한다고 단정할 수 없는 것이고 그 과정을 살펴 개별적으로 배임죄의 구성요건에 해당하는지 여부에 따라 판단하여야 한다”고 하여 차입매수행위의 배임성을 원칙적으로 부정하지 않았다. 학설적으로는 기업인수합병을 위한 차입매수의 효율성과, 경제적 필요성을 강조하는 입장에서 차입매수에 대하여 배임죄의 잣대를 들이대는 대법원의 견해를 비판적으로 보는 이론적 구성도 다수를 점하고 있다. 특정 행위의 불법을 판단함에 있어서는 일반적인 범죄체계에 따라 그 행위가 특정한 구성요건에 해당하는지를 분석하여야 하며, 특정 유형의 행위가 불법한 행위인지 또는 불법하지 않은 행위인지에 대한 평가는 그와 같은 행위의 사법적 평가와 관련한 예견가능성을 담보할 수 있도록 일관성을 갖춰야 한다. 판단의 일관성은 유사한 행위를 하려는 행위자에게 행위의 준칙을 제시함으로써 사회에 법적 안정성을 부여할 수 있으며, 사후에 진행되는 불법 판단에 있어서도 공정성을 담보할 수 있기 때문이다. 따라서 본고에서는 여러 가지 유형의 차입매수에 있어서 필연적으로 수반되는 담보제공 등 피인수기업의 자산처분 행위 및 피인수기업의 합병 행위가 원칙적으로 배임죄의 구성요건에 해당되어 배임죄로 처벌될 수 있다는 점을 살펴보았다. While in the United States, LBO is considered as one of management strategies and regulated by civil rules rather than criminal rules, in Korea the position of the Supreme Court in the ruling of Hanilhapsum`s LBO of 2010 is that breach of trust can not apply indiscriminately to all major actors involving in company acquisition by way of LBO in the state of non existence of specific law on LBO. And then it clears that each cases should be judged individually after examining the concrete process of LBO whether it fills the elements of breach of trust. In contrast, the majority opinion in Korea criticizes the Supreme Court`s rulings that acts of LBO basically satisfy objective elements of breach of trust. The majority maintains that acts of LBO for company`s M&A are necessary in its efficiency and economic necessity. When judging criminality of a particular act, two principles should be observed. The first one is whether the act could fill the element of criminality according to general criminal system. And the second is that rulings should be made consistently when judging whether particular act could meet the elements of breach of trust or not. Only in case of maintaining those two principles, rulings on LBO cases can provide action rules for actors and legal safety-net to society, and also obtain fairness of judgement. The paper tries to illuminate that various types of LBO transactions should be punished basically for its filling the elements of breach of trust.

변호사업무정지명령제도의 제도적 개선방안

이재방 ( Jae Bang Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2009 홍익법학 Vol.10 No.1

According to the Constitutional Court`s decision on unconstitutionality in 1990, Attorney-at-Law Act was revised in 1993 to specify conditions for interim suspension. However, considering that the revised provision still has the problem of ambiguity, this paper suggests four legal improvements. First, the authority for ordering interim suspension should be given to the court in which a lawyer is convicted. Second, requirements for interim suspension should be differentiated in order to limit the scope of the lawyers suspended. Third, instead of suspending all practice of law, the scope of suspending cases should be appropriately limited, in order to exclude cases that clients do not want to change their lawyer, and so on. And finally, in order to protect public and client`s interests, the interim suspension should be informed not only in the Korean bar Association`s gazette and homepage but also to clients.

양형기준제도와 양형기준준수율: 영국과 한국의 사례를 중심으로

이재방 ( Jae Bang Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2015 홍익법학 Vol.16 No.3

To enhance sentencing consistency, sentencing guidelines were introduced in England and Wales(recently revised in 2010) and Korea in 2007. The article compares sentencing guidelines and compliance rates for England and Wales and Korea. The reason for comparison of both systems even in different criminal justice systems is that sentencing guidelines for both jurisdictions are individual offence specific guidelines in contrast with the comprehensive systems of the U.S. federal sentencing guidelines. Sentencing guidelines compliance rates in 2013 are 97 percent in England and Wales and 89.6 per cent in Korea. However, the high compliance rates do not show the consistency in sentencing. This article explores that sentencing guidelines compliance rate is a limiting indicator to show sentencing consistency. The definition of departure from sentencing guidelines is different in both jurisdictions. In England and Wales it is defined broadly as departure from ``offence range`` under the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009. Thus, the departure rates is lower in comparison of the rates defined from the ``category range`` in the period before 2009. In contrast, in Korea it is considered as departure from each ``recommended sentencing range``. The departures seems to be more narrowly defined in Korea than in England and Wales. In Korea, some maintain that the scope of each recommended sentencing range is too broad and thus starting points should be introduced. However, the scope in Korea is not as large as the one in England and Wales. Considering the limits of departure rates for showing consistency in sentencing, the article maintains that departure rates should be equally defined when comparing the degree of consistency in different sentencing guidelines jurisdictions. In conclusion, sentencing consistency completes not only from ``consistency of outcome`` but also from ``consistency of sentencing process.`` Thus, to enhance sentencing consistency, more clearly articulated steps for sentencing guidelines should be established.

제2형 근관에서 거터퍼쳐 콘의 적용방법에 따른 치근단 누출의 비교

이재방 ( Jae Bang Lee ),노봉환 ( Bong Hwan No ),황호길 ( Ho Keel Hwang ) 조선대학교 구강생물학연구소 2007 Oral Biology Research (Oral Biol Res) Vol.31 No.1

양형기준에서 피해자중심 접근: 영국 양형위원회의 절도죄 양형기준을 중심으로

이재방 ( Jae Bang Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2016 홍익법학 Vol.17 No.1

This article reviews victim related factors in ``Theft Offence Definitive Guidelines in England and Wales``, published in 2015 and seeks to implications for improving Sentencing Guidelines in Korea. ``Step one`` and ``step two`` in applying English sentencing guidelines are most important steps. ``Step one`` determines offence category and ``step two`` adjusts upward and downward movements from the starting point in the appropriate category range, based on the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. To illuminate the way to consider victim-related factors in sentencing guidelines, the article focuses on these two steps. In the ``Theft Offence Definitive Guidelines in 2015``, harm is assessed in two respects: financial loss and any additional harm. Adding ``any additional harm`` to the assessment of financial harm is to consider any detrimental subjective harm in the victim``s respect. In Korea, ‘General Theft Sentencing Guidelines`` considers personal or social harm as special sentencing factors when the degree of harm is considerably serious and has not been recovered. However, concerning the definition of special sentencing factors, the article asserts following matters for further considerations. First, for full consideration of harms in sentencing process, harm factors in sentencing guidelines need to be divided into financial and personal respects as in the English theft sentencing guidelines. Second, instead of one simple factor of in the case of high degree of personal or social harm, harm factors should be divided into ``personal`` and ``social`` harm factors, thereby balancing the various factors respectively in applying sentencing guidelines. Third, considering that special sentencing factors be balanced without qualified consideration of mitigating and aggravating ones, ``personal`` and ``social`` harms should be considered respectively. Fourth, the definition of sentencing factors of personal or social harms includes other appropriate cases. However, this inclusion of other appropriate case in the personal or social harms is likely to work as a factor of the non-exhaustive list. Thus, the scope of this factor needs to be shortened. And lastly, in the assessing principle of sentencing factors, the factor of victim``s intention of not punishing the offender is considered as ``offence`` factor, not as ``offender/other factor`` of the special sentencing factors. However, in the case when social harm is considerably serious, current frame of considering social harm factor and victim``s intention of not punishing the offender as equal factors should be reconsidered.