소년법상의 비행소년에 대한 임시조치-한국·미국·일본의 관호제도의 비교검토를 중심으로-

강경래 한국소년정책학회 2015 少年保護硏究 Vol.28 No.1

When the police, etc. clear a juvenile offender who committedan offense with statutory penalty of fine or lighter punishment,they shall refer the case to a family court, and with that ofheavier punishment to a public prosecutor, excluding a casewhere the juvenile offender is cleared for violations of RoadTraffic Act and for which the pecuniary penalty is paid inaccordance with the traffic infraction notification system. Apublic prosecutor investigates the case and then refers it to afamily court if there is probable cause to suspect that an offencehas been committed or any other reason to subject the case to ahearing of a family court. With juvenile offenders under 14 and pre-delinquents youngerthan 14 years of age, measures provided by the Child WelfareAct have priority and a family court may subject them to ahearing only when a prefectural governor or the director of achild consultation center refers the juvenile to a family court. Police officers may investigate a case if necessary when theydiscover a juvenile and there exists, in reasonable view ofobjective circumstances, probable cause to suspect that he/she isa juvenile offender under 14. The police shall refer the case to the director of a child consultation center if they consider thatthe act of the juvenile involved specific types of serious offensesas a result of the investigation. The prefectural governor or thedirector of a child consultation center will refer the juvenile theyhave been notified of or received, etc. to a family court if theydeem it appropriate to subject the juvenile to a hearing in afamily court. When juvenile offenders under 14 violated laws orregulations involving specific types of serious offenses, however,the governor/director is required, in principle, to refer the case toa family court. 2 Procedure in a family court. (1) Investigation in a family courtA family court is required to investigate any case referred bypublic prosecutors, etc. It can order a family court research lawclerk to investigate it. (2) Classification in a juvenile classification homeA family court may refer a juvenile to a juvenile classificationhome and request a classification of their predisposition by aruling (protective detention) if it is needed for a hearing. In thiscase, the juvenile classification home accommodates the referredjuvenile and classifies his/her predisposition based on theexpertise it has in medicine, psychology, pedagogy, sociology,and other specialized fields in order to contribute to the hearing,etc. in a family court. As of April 1, 2014, there were 1 juvenileclassification homes nationwide. In this study, South Korea and Japan, and were to becompared and discussed American protective detention.

소년법상의 비행소년에 대한 임시조치 -한국·미국·일본의 관호제도의 비교검토를 중심으로-

강경래 ( Kang Kyung-rea ) 한국소년정책학회 2015 少年保護硏究 Vol.28 No.-

When the police, etc. clear a juvenile offender who committed an offense with statutory penalty of fine or lighter punishment, they shall refer the case to a family court, and with that of heavier punishment to a public prosecutor, excluding a case where the juvenile offender is cleared for violations of Road Traffic Act and for which the pecuniary penalty is paid in accordance with the traffic infraction notification system. A public prosecutor investigates the case and then refers it to a family court if there is probable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed or any other reason to subject the case to a hearing of a family court. With juvenile offenders under 14 and pre-delinquents younger than 14 years of age, measures provided by the Child Welfare Act have priority and a family court may subject them to a hearing only when a prefectural governor or the director of a child consultation center refers the juvenile to a family court. Police officers may investigate a case if necessary when they discover a juvenile and there exists, in reasonable view of objective circumstances, probable cause to suspect that he/she is a juvenile offender under 14. The police shall refer the case to the director of a child consultation center if they consider that the act of the juvenile involved specific types of serious offenses as a result of the investigation. The prefectural governor or the director of a child consultation center will refer the juvenile they have been notified of or received, etc. to a family court if they deem it appropriate to subject the juvenile to a hearing in a family court. When juvenile offenders under 14 violated laws or regulations involving specific types of serious offenses, however, the governor/director is required, in principle, to refer the case to a family court. 2 Procedure in a family court. (1) Investigation in a family court A family court is required to investigate any case referred by public prosecutors, etc. It can order a family court research law clerk to investigate it. (2) Classification in a juvenile classification home A family court may refer a juvenile to a juvenile classification home and request a classification of their predisposition by a ruling (protective detention) if it is needed for a hearing. In this case, the juvenile classification home accommodates the referred juvenile and classifies his/her predisposition based on the expertise it has in medicine, psychology, pedagogy, sociology, and other specialized fields in order to contribute to the hearing, etc. in a family court. As of April 1, 2014, there were 1 juvenile classification homes nationwide. In this study, South Korea and Japan, and were to be compared and discussed American protective detention.

일본의 2014년 개정 소년법에 관한 의의와 평가

박상열 ( Park Sang-yull ) 한국소년정책학회 2015 少年保護硏究 Vol.28 No.-

Flow of treatment for Japan of juvenile offenders is as follows. When the police or other authority clear a juvenile offender aged 14-19, excluding cases with payment of non-penal fines for Road Traffic Act violations, the case is to be referred to a family court for offenses liable to fines or lighter punishment, or to a public prosecutor for offenses for which they are liable to imprisonment or capital punishment as well as in general cases. As for juveniles of illegal behavior and pre-delinquents under 14 years of age, priority is given to measures under the Child Welfare Act. A family court may subject such juvenile to a hearing only when it receives a referral from a prefectural governor or a director of a child guidance center. Police officers may investigate cases when they discovered juveniles for whom there is probable cause to suspect that they are of illegal behavior judging from the objective situation. (1) Investigation by a family court and classification by a juvenile classification home After receiving a case, the family court must investigate the case and may order a family court probation officer to interview the juvenile, guardians and witnesses, and to conduct other necessary investigations. The juvenile classification home detains the transferred juvenile and conducts classification on the predisposition of the juvenile based on expertise in medicine, psychology, pedagogy, and sociology, etc. (2) Hearing by a family court Individual hearings at family courts are generally performed by a single judge. However, if it was decided by a collegiate court body that a collegiate court body should perform the hearing, a collegiate court body of judges then handles the hearing. Hearings at family courts must be closed to the public. However, in accordance to the Act for Partial Amendment to the Juvenile Act promulgated on June 18, 2008, attendance may be permitted upon request from victims, etc. to attend the hearing, if deemed appropriate and not likely to disturb the healthy development of the juvenile while taking into consideration the juvenile's age and mental/physical condition, for cases related to any offense committed by a juvenile offender aged 14-19 or a juvenile of illegal behavior aged 12 or older in which the victim was killed or injured through the offender's intentional criminal act or negligence in the pursuit of social activities (in the case of injury, limited to serious injuries endangering the life of the victim). This act will be enforced on a day specified in a Cabinet Order and within a period not exceeding six months of the date of promulgation but excluding any provisions (June 18, 2008). The family court may also place the juvenile under tentative supervision, which is to prompt a family court probation officer to directly supervise the juvenile for a certain period of time, if it deems such supervision necessary to determine appropriate protective measures. If the family court determines that measures under the Child Welfare Act are appropriate, it refers the case to the prefectural governor or the director of a child guidance center. When the case involves an offense punishable by death penalty or an offense punishable by imprisonment with or without work, the family court refers the case to a public prosecutor if it determines that criminal disposition is appropriate. Also, as for cases in which victims were killed through intentional criminal acts that were committed by a juvenile at the age of 16 or over, the family court shall refer such a case to a public prosecutor, except for cases where measures other than criminal dispositions are considered more appropriate in light of the motives and type of offense, situations after the offense, the personality, age, behavior and environment of the juvenile and other conditions. In cases other than these, the family court has to make decision of protective measures such as a disposition of probation, commitment to a support facility for development of self-sustaining capacity, or a children's home (limited for those under 18), or commitment to a juvenile training school (limited for those aged generally 12 or over). In this paper, I discussed the evaluation and significance of 2014 revised the Juvenile Law in Japan.

한국의 소년범 처리실태와 개선방안: 보호처분을 중심으로

한영선 한국청소년학회 2018 한국청소년학회 학술대회 Vol.2018 No.1

According to the recent news which youth crime is going severe, lots of people requested the petition of juvenile law abolition. Under this situation I look into the Korea`s juvenile crime trends, response of government, and some problems, suggest the several ideas First of all, the statistics reveal that Korea`s juvenile crime does not increase, especially recidivism rate decreases from 2013 year. However, rapes and sexual assaults are rising. The rate of youth offenders committed the crime whining 1 year among population of recidivists is 75.3%. It means that early intervention is important but the effort failed. Prosecutors are getting self-regulated in the discretion of prosecution of juvenile youth. They are reducing the number of prosecution and sending much more juvenile criminals to Juvenile Courts. But juvenile courts are making institutional disposition, which means Juvenile courts are showing "get tough policy". In 2007, Korea`s juvenile court act was amended a lot, especially the Congress changed the purpose of Juvenile court act in 50 years. The focus was shifted from "ensuring sound fostering of juveniles" to "helping sound fostering of juveniles". In order to help the juveniles` proper maturation in the practical situation, we need the proper personnel, facilities, and programs. I believe that privatization of education sect is the better way to reinforce the government personnel. Another suggestion is that related to the juvenile court act clause that "protective dispositions imposed on the juvenile shall not affect their future status". We all people should strictly follow the spirit of juvenile court act. Running away from juvenile facilities is not committing escaping the prison. In addition to that, we should consider a measure to sealing or demolishing the record of juvenile misbehaviors. 최근 들어 청소년범죄가 흉포화되고 있다는 언론보도와 함께 소년법의 폐지 청원 등 소년범에 대한 엄벌 요구가 증가하고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 우리나라의 소년범죄 실태와 처리 동향은 어떠한지 그리고 문제점이 있다면 어떤 개선방안이 있는지를 살펴보았다. 먼저 우리나라 소년사건의 실태를 살펴본 결과 일반적으로 우려하는 것처럼 증가하지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 소년범죄의 누범화 경향도 2013년을 기점으로 감소하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 다만 인터넷의 영향으로 사기와 횡령 등 재산범죄와 성폭력 범죄가 늘어나는 것은 우려할만한 현상이다. 그리고 재범자 중에서 1년 이내 재범이 전체 재범자의 75.3%를 차지하고 있어 효과적인 보호관찰 등 조기 개입의 필요성이 매우 크다고 하겠다. 우리나라는 검사선의주의이지만 검사가 기소권을 스스로 통제하면서 소년법원으로 송치하는 비율이 점차 늘어나고 있으며, 소년법원은 시설내 처분을 하는 비율이 늘어나서 엄벌화 경향을 보이고 있다. 그리고 소년법의 목적이 소년의 건전한 육성이라는 국가 주도적 접근에서 소년의 건전한 성장을 돕는다는 소년 주도적 접근으로 변화하였으나 이를 집행현장에서 실천하기 위해서는 소년원 등의 인력확보가 무엇보다 중요하다. 다만 소년보호교육기관의 인력 부족은 직원의 충원 뿐만 아니라 민간 전문가에게 이를 개방하는 민영화도 한 방법이라고 생각된다. 다음으로 소년법의 보호처분은 소년의 장래에 어떠한 불이익도 미치지 않는다고 선언하고 있는바 소년원 등에서 소년이 이탈하더라도 도주죄에 해당되지 않는다고 하여야 할 것이며, 소년의 전과기록 특히 수사자료조회표에도 소년의 처분결과를 삭제 또는 봉인하는 방안을 마련하여야 할 것이다.

소년사법체계와 선의주의 모델

정희철 한국소년정책학회 2023 少年保護硏究 Vol.36 No.2

The Juvenile Law adopted the prosecutor's prior authority over juvenile process-choice when the Juvenile Law was enacted in 1958. During the first revision of the Juvenile Law in 1963 and the third revision of the Juvenile Law in 1988, there were discussions about switching from prosecutor's prior authority to court's prior authority, but it was not actually reflected in the law. In the Fourth Juvenile Law Amendment of 2007, the introduction of the court's prior authority and the foundation of independent juvenile courts were raised again, but after intensive discussion, the current prosecutor's prior authority in juvenile justice system was retained. The following problems with the prior authority model in juvenile justice system have been pointed out in various research papers. The problems of the prosecutor's prior authority model are summarized as the limitation of realizing the philosophy of juvenile protection, duplication of juvenile case processing procedures and delays in processing, unclear criteria for selecting juvenile case processing procedures, and infringement of equity in juvenile dispositions. On the other hand, the problem of court's prior authority is summarized as the ambiguity of who judges the proceedings in the juvenile court, and the duplication and delay of juvenile proceedings. These problems can be mitigated or even improved in the short term through improvements in juvenile justice practices and institutions. However, these are fundamental problems of the juvenile justice system that cannot be solved without the foundation of independent specialized juvenile courts and the realization of court's prior authority model. First of all, we should lay the foundation for the transition to the court's prior authority model by operating limited the prosecutor's prior authority in the short term. Based on this foundation, it is hoped that in the medium to long term, the establishment of juvenile courts that realize the court's prior authority in the form of procedural separation and jurisdictional consolidation will bear fruit. The selection of the prior authority model in juvenile justice system is not a matter of normative logic, but rather a matter of policy decision based on judgment of the appropriateness of a particular prior authority model. The judgment of whether the choice of the prior authority model of juvenile law is reasonable is based on a comparative review of which model is more in line with the ideology of juvenile protection and the purpose of juvenile justice.

한국의 소년범 처리실태와 개선방안: 보호처분을 중심으로

한영선 한국청소년학회 2018 한국청소년학회 학술대회 Vol.2019 No.1

According to the recent news which youth crime is going severe, lots of people requested the petition of juvenile law abolition. Under this situation I look into the Korea`s juvenile crime trends, response of government, and some problems, suggest the several ideas First of all, the statistics reveal that Korea`s juvenile crime does not increase, especially recidivism rate decreases from 2013 year. However, rapes and sexual assaults are rising. The rate of youth offenders committed the crime whining 1 year among population of recidivists is 75.3%. It means that early intervention is important but the effort failed. Prosecutors are getting self-regulated in the discretion of prosecution of juvenile youth. They are reducing the number of prosecution and sending much more juvenile criminals to Juvenile Courts. But juvenile courts are making institutional disposition, which means Juvenile courts are showing "get tough policy". In 2007, Korea`s juvenile court act was amended a lot, especially the Congress changed the purpose of Juvenile court act in 50 years. The focus was shifted from "ensuring sound fostering of juveniles" to "helping sound fostering of juveniles". In order to help the juveniles` proper maturation in the practical situation, we need the proper personnel, facilities, and programs. I believe that privatization of education sect is the better way to reinforce the government personnel. Another suggestion is that related to the juvenile court act clause that "protective dispositions imposed on the juvenile shall not affect their future status". We all people should strictly follow the spirit of juvenile court act. Running away from juvenile facilities is not committing escaping the prison. In addition to that, we should consider a measure to sealing or demolishing the record of juvenile misbehaviors. 최근 들어 청소년범죄가 흉포화되고 있다는 언론보도와 함께 소년법의 폐지 청원 등 소년범에 대한 엄벌 요구가 증가하고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 우리나라의 소년범죄 실태와 처리 동향은 어떠한지 그리고 문제점이 있다면 어떤 개선방안이 있는지를 살펴보았다. 먼저 우리나라 소년사건의 실태를 살펴본 결과 일반적으로 우려하는 것처럼 증가하지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 소년범죄의 누범화 경향도 2013년을 기점으로 감소하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 다만 인터넷의 영향으로 사기와 횡령 등 재산범죄와 성폭력 범죄가 늘어나는 것은 우려할만한 현상이다. 그리고 재범자 중에서 1년 이내 재범이 전체 재범자의 75.3%를 차지하고 있어 효과적인 보호관찰 등 조기 개입의 필요성이 매우 크다고 하겠다. 우리나라는 검사선의주의이지만 검사가 기소권을 스스로 통제하면서 소년법원으로 송치하는 비율이 점차 늘어나고 있으며, 소년법원은 시설내 처분을 하는 비율이 늘어나서 엄벌화 경향을 보이고 있다. 그리고 소년법의 목적이 소년의 건전한 육성이라는 국가 주도적 접근에서 소년의 건전한 성장을 돕는다는 소년 주도적 접근으로 변화하였으나 이를 집행현장에서 실천하기 위해서는 소년원 등의 인력확보가 무엇보다 중요하다. 다만 소년보호교육기관의 인력 부족은 직원의 충원 뿐만 아니라 민간 전문가에게 이를 개방하는 민영화도 한 방법이라고 생각된다. 다음으로 소년법의 보호처분은 소년의 장래에 어떠한 불이익도 미치지 않는다고 선언하고 있는바 소년원 등에서 소년이 이탈하더라도 도주죄에 해당되지 않는다고 하여야 할 것이며, 소년의 전과기록 특히 수사자료조회표에도 소년의 처분결과를 삭제 또는 봉인하는 방안을 마련하여야 할 것이다.

일본의 소년형사사건에 대한 재판원재판의 동향

최종식 한국소년정책학회 2010 少年保護硏究 Vol.15 No.-

Japanese Juvenile Justice System takes Family Court Prior Consideration System. Thus, in order to impose a criminal treatment to a juvenile offender, Family Court should send him/her back to a prosecutor. According to the recently revised juvenile justice that has a tendency of giving severe punishment, a juvenile offender who is over 16 years old and committed murder or heavy crimes is supposed to be sent to the public prosecutor for criminal treatment(2nd clause of article 20). And yet, there are some exceptions that the Juvenile offender may not be sent to the prosecutor in case that it can be regarded as any other treatment than criminal one. Since the Civic Participation System has firstly been conducted in Japan in May 2009, there are just a few juvenile cases conducted by Civic Participation System be cause of controlled management of Family Court on juvenile cases. Although the cases are very few, there were some cases sent back to prosecutor and was conducted by Civic Participation System. However, there are some impressions that juvenile offenders did not seem to be treated and prepared appropriately and specially in the Civic Participation Court. Therefore, I have some suggestions here: First,juvenile criminal cases should be unopened to the public in the Criminal Court under the Civic Participation System; Second, the fact that the seriousness of criminal actions only focused in the Civic Participation Court rather than considering protective measure should be revised;Third, after examining all the social enquiry of juvenile offenders, jury should decide the availability of protective measure. As a result, the key to success of the Civic Participation System on juvenile criminal cases depends on the availability that juries can send juvenile offenders back to Family Court for protective measure.

소년분류심사제도의 운영실태와 발전방향

정해룡 ( Hae-ryong Chung ) 한국소년정책학회 2003 少年保護硏究 Vol.- No.5

This study aims to take a look at the operation of the juvenile classification review system in Korea and seeks methods of desirable development for prevention of youth misconduct and recurrence. In Korea, the Seoul Juvenile Classification Review Board first began in 1977, and it was followed by 5 additional institutions established in Seoul, Busan, Daegu, Daejeon and Gwangiu, as it stands in the present. In addition, the juvenile correctional institution has been undertaking the works of the Juvenile Classification Office in Jeonju, Cheongju, Chuncheon and Jeju. At 3 locations with regional district courts, Incheon, Suwon and Changwon, where juvenile correctional institutions have not been established, the commissioned accommodation amangement and classification review works for juveniles is performed at the Seoul Juvenile Classification Office for Incheon and Suwon, and the Busan Juvenile Classification Office for Changwon. The Juvenile Classification Office is commissioned to protect juvenile criminals, underage juveniles, and crime watch juveniles of 12 to 20 years of age who are entrusted by the juvenile division of a family court or regional district court. Its role is to clearly assess the personality of the subject juveniles scientifically based on psychology, education and psychological medicine and method of the treatment and instruction, while providing the necessary information needed for investigative inquiry into the juvenile division of a family court or regional district court. It further provides instructive information to the enforcement agency of protective disposition, the correctional institution for juveniles, protection monitoring office or guardian of commissioned juveniles, as well as providing the treatment service and education for the subject juveniles, and prevents unlawful misconduct of abiding youth in the community. Looking at the recent status of 5 years of youth crime, there is an average of approximately 143,000 criminal juveniles, and the number of juveniles received at the juvenile protection facilities reached approximately 37,000 persons. In the national institutions that are equipped with professional treatment systems like the Juvenile Classification Office, the youths who have been treated for causes of problems or educational service number only about 7,000 persons. Therefore, most juvenile criminals who are sent to the Juvenile Division under a non-restraint condition return to their guardians without any special treatment or building up of a proper environment, and are again exposed to the former destructive environment, leading to committing further crimes. Therefore, in order to prevent recurrent juvenile misconduct, it is important to accurately clarify the cause of juvenile misconduct at an appropriate time along with the building up of an environment and education for support. And for such purposes, active utilization of the juvenile classification review system is needed. The conversion of the Juvenile Classification Office into an open system is currently in the works, and the needs to expand the functions during the course of innovating organizational management has emerged. The following is the direction of development for the juvenile classification review system: First, it may be necessary to introduce and implement the Protected Juvenile Counseling Investigation System. This system is where, after having the juvenile sent to the classification office within the shortest period of time as a method of taking daily attendance and not as a commitment, the juvenile returns home after having undergone a comprehensive examination for the clarification of the cause of misconduct through individual consultation with the classification officer, examination inspection, and others, and small-sized branch offices of the Juvenile Classification Office have been established nationwide to provide user-oriented administrative services. Second, it is desirable for the classification officer who examined the juvenile criminal’s tendencies and the environment where the misconduct occurred must participate in the course of the juvenile case examination and testify with the permission of the court as to his/her opinion - the Classification Officer Examination Participation System. Third, there is a need to improve the juvenile judiciary procedure to duly realize the human rights protection of juveniles and the ideology of the Juvenile Act by separately establishing a temporary court in the Juvenile Classification Office and introducing the "circuit justice system”, where the judges of the Juvenile Division of the Court visit the Juvenile Classification Office and examine the commissioned juvenile. Fourth, in order to prevent youth misconduct in the community, the functions, such as a regular organization of youth aptitude testing office and others, must be expanded, and its role as the short-term commissioned educational institution for students who are unable to adapt to the general school system and the expansion of special education on people subject for stay of prosecution must be strengthened. For this purpose, the Juvenile Classification Office needs to build up the environment to provide an open-style administrative service along with structuring of the classification review system. In addition,a system for timely intervention of the juvenile under crime watch, notification to the principal and others, be activated to supplement the problem youth processing system in school, and in response to diversification of disposition types, heightening the efficacy of protection disposition, rearranging pertinent laws and regulations, including the Juvenile Act and others, must follow.

소년법원에서 시민참가형 재판제도에 관한 일고찰 - 프랑스와 영국의 소년재판을 중심으로 하여 -

최종식 ( Choi Jong-sik ) 한국소년정책학회 2010 少年保護硏究 Vol.14 No.-

There are certainly some merits in obtaining reasonable judgements as well as in getting appropriate treatments for the young offenders when civil and community people directly take part in the juvenile court trials. Likewise, the French and British juvenile courts are also practicing the Civic Participation System by Continental Mixed System and the Magistrates(Lay Judges)' Court System respectively, and their judgements show that the major purpose of youth trials is providing better education and rehabilitation for young offenders rather than just punishing them. The brief summary of the research paper is as follows. First, there is a major thing in common in the French Juvenile Courts and British youth courts: They have the closed-door and confrontation trials in the form of Civic Participation System. Second, the French Civic Participation System by Continental Mixed Jury System is composed of two civic judges and one professional judge. And the civic judges' experiences and the legal judge's professional knowledge seem to be harmoniously combined and pass careful and fair judgements for young offenders. In the same manner, the British Youth Courts also manage the traditional Magistrates-centered trials, and it shows that they conduct the juvenile justice deeply related to community and civil participation. Third, an Educateur plays a very important role in the sense of examining and supporting youth offenders in the French Juvenile Courts. Just like the French Educateur, the British Youth Courts also have the similar system called Youth Offending Team. Both systems can be highly appraised because they are actively supporting for the youth offenders' social environment and practical rehabilitation. Finally, it is definitely worthwhile for the better Korean juvenile justice to review some points of French and British juvenile justice systems based on civic participation trials, such as civic judges and prosecutors attendance and Educateur and Youth Offending Team's participation in the juvenile trials.

소년법 제67조의 위헌성에 대한 검토- 집행유예를 선고받은 소년범을 자격에 관한 특례조항의 적용대상에서 제외할 수 있는가? -

박찬걸 한국소년정책학회 2018 少年保護硏究 Vol.31 No.1

Juvenile Act can be what's called special criminal act which is limited in personal coverage in that such an act includes juvenile offenders, juveniles who are against the law, and juveniles with a criminal bent among juveniles under 19 years old. Hence, criminal cases of juveniles shall be applied to the example of general criminal cases without special provisions of Juvenile Act. However, special provisions stipulated in clause of Article 48 of Juvenile Act take special measures against criminal procedures, setting it as the main aim to help juveniles grow healthy. A general and broad review about special provisions of Juvenile Act has often been discussed in the academic circles, up to now. But as Article 67 of Juvenile Act related to ‘the Legislative Coverage of Criteria’ which has rarely been the focus of discussion relatively compared with any other special clauses is recently proclaimed as the decision incompatible with the constitution, it is judged that the field for the discussion about it would be provided. On January 25 2018, the Consitutional Court ruled that Article 67 was incompatible with the Constitution and ordered that the legislative clause would be applied continually until December 31 2018 when such a clause would be revised. The legislative body took the prompt measures against this immediately after the Consitutional Court made such a decision. Some legislative revision bills on Juvenile Act issued by Representative Haek Hye-ryeon on January 26 2018 were in response to it. It can be said that this was proposed with the main aim to complement the defect of the current laws incurred by the Consitutional Court's incompatible decision, by amending the pertained regulations so that the special case in Article 67 of Juvenile Act could be applied into the declaration of a stay of execution just like the sentence of imprisonment. In this regard, the study will analyze the provisions and specific issues in Article 67 of Juvenile Act and conduct a comparison with the declaration of a stay of execution and the sentence of imprisonment in consideration of the legal and factual attributes of the declaration of a stay of execution to review the validity of the decision incompatible with the Consitutional Court as to Article 67 of Juvenile Act and some legislative revision bills on it. .