중국형법상 기업의 처벌제도

김창준 ( Chang Joon Kim ) 한국비교형사법학회 2011 비교형사법연구 Vol.13 No.1

The study sets forth forth in detail the revolution of China`s Criminal Punishment System for Enterprises, the basis for Enterprise Criminal punishment and the structure of the enterprise criminal punishment theory, as well as the fomation of intentional crime in the enterprise crimes. ln addition, it dwells on the content, the characteristics and the existing problems of the Criminal Punishment System for Enterprises in the penal code. The Criminal Punishment System for Enterprises in China was first stipulated in the Administrative Law and Special Criminal Saw in the late 1980`s, and was introduced into Penal code through amendment of criminal law in the late 1990`s. There are almost 130 kinds of enterprise crimes included in the Penal code of China, most of the enterprise crimes are under the category of intentional crime and the rest are included into that of negligent crime. The Punishment on the criminal enterprises is principled on the Double punishment System, which basically follows the principle that: in the event of the crime committed by an organization or an institution is described in the preceding clause, the organization or institution shall be imposed penalty fine, and the superintendent who is directly responsible and whoever is directly responsible shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding clause. Therefore, Double punishment Systemis, based on the Natural person Inclusion Theory, an individual crminal punishment structure for enterprises. Penalty fine punishment as a means of criminal sanction levied upon the enterprise organizations, is currently not only the osle type and the unique criminal sanctin, with most of penalty fine cases are imposed System of Unspecified Penalty Fine Amount and System of Penalty Fine Aggregation, but also monetary penalty is the only the punishment in terms of punishment execution. The existing systematic problems are the major causes that reduce the effect of criminal punishment. As a result, to improve and perfect the system of enterprises criminal punishment in the penal code is the most pressing demand of the day.

수용자 징벌 사유의 미수 규정 필요성에 관한 소고

윤동호 한국교정학회 2023 矯正硏究 Vol.33 No.2

Punishment for prisoners does not simply mean spatial separation and restrictions on treatment. Punishment is one of the most significant dispositions in correctional facilities that affect correctional performance, treatment ratings, and parole. Therefore, there is no moment that is not important from the perspective of the prisoner, from the acceptance of the investigation to the execution of punishment. Punishment that has such a great impact should clearly stipulate all the reasons for punishment, the type of punishment, and the procedures to be carried out. But our relevant legislation has been pointed out for its inaccuracies. Among its inaccuracies, this study aims to pay attention to the lack of the attempted regulations for the reasons for punishment. In some cases, the act of the subject of punishment corresponds to an attempted punishment, and since it cannot be accurately resolved by the current law, it is handled by applying other regulations. Inaccurate statutes and inaccurate treatment based on them are increasing the possibility of infringement of the human rights of prisoners. Considering that the sound return to society through correctional education is the positive purpose of the correctional institution, it is very necessary to establish discipline through accurate punishment regulations. Through the specific problems experienced by the correctional site, this paper will emphasize the need for an attempted regulation of the grounds for punishment, and will closely analyze the current punishment regulations. It will also examine foreign attempted punishment regulations and propose the establishment of attempted regulations as a way to improve them.

비인간적이고 잔혹한 형벌의 의미: 미국수정헌법 제8조와의 비교

강민구 한국비교형사법학회 2019 비교형사법연구 Vol.20 No.4

Controversial multiple security-measures are imposed after the term of imprisonment in South Korea. In these circumstances, the inhibition of inhuman and cruel punishment as the limiting principle on punishment and punitive security-measures are meaningful differentiated from liability principle and principle of no penalty without a law. In comparison to the eighth amended constitution text which is similar but not same, the meaning of inhuman and cruel punishment can be summarized as three characteristics. First, it is necessary to interpret the authentic meaning of the universality of inhuman punishment. Inhuman punishment of South Korea is different from unusual one of the U.S.A., and this is connected with the difference between the fundamental decency as human of South Korea and the evolving standards of decency of the U.S.A. Second, cruel punishment is the core phrase in analytical perspective. This phrase is the specification of inhuman punishment or fundamental decency as human. This is the expression of not intent but effect, and it can also include not only physical pain but also mental pain plus the intentional imposition of unnecessary and unjust pain. Third, the judgment whether the punishment is inhuman and cruel or not can be differentiated according to categories. To now on, the focus has been on the punishment of specific crimes, but the focus need to be changed into the state or condition of criminals to use categorical reasoning. 우리나라에는 형기 종료자에게 형벌적 속성에 대해 논란이 있는 다양한 보안처분이 중복 부과되고 있다. 이런 상황에서 형벌 및 형벌적 보안처분에 대한 새로운 한계원리로서 비인간적이고 잔혹한 형벌 금지는 책임 또는 비례성 원칙, 죄형법정주의 등과 구별되는 논의실익이 존재하였다. 우리와 비슷하면서도 다른 미국 수정헌법 제8조의 논의와 비교할 때, 비인간적이고 잔혹한 형벌의 의미는 세 가지로 정리된다. 첫째, 비인간적 형벌의 보편성에 대한 독자적 의미해석이 요청된다. 우리의 비인간적 형벌은 미국의 이상한 형벌과 구분되며, 이는 우리의 인간으로서의 기본적 품위 기준이 미국의 진화하는 인간 품위 기준과 구분되는 것과도 관련된다. 둘째, 잔혹한 형벌은 분석적 관점에서 핵심적 문구에 해당한다. 비인간적 형벌 또는 인간으로서의 기본적 품위의 구체화이기 때문이다. 의도가 아닌 효과에 대한 표현으로서, 미국의 판례를 고려할 때 정신적 고통 및 불필요하고 부당한 의도적 고통 부과도 포섭될 가능성이 있다. 셋째, 비인간적이고 잔혹한 형벌 여부 판단은 범주에 따라 달라질 수 있다. 그동안 헌법재판소가 특정 형벌의 위헌성에 심사 초점이 모아져 왔는데, 같은 형벌이라 하더라도 범죄자의 상태나 조건, 처지에 따라 비인간적이고 잔혹한 형벌이 될 수도 있다는 범주논증이 활용될 수 있을 것이다.

아동의 권리와 가정내 아동체벌금지에 관한 헌법적 고찰

이노홍 ( Noh Hong Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2015 홍익법학 Vol.16 No.1

Corporal punishment is one of the most pervasive and traditional forms to discipline children in families and schools all over the world. But corporal punishment actually and simply is hitting the children for purposes of correction and it causes pain and may cause other physical and mental abuse. Children are the only people against whom violence is permitted and justified as discipline in our society. Children are one of the most vulnerable minorities for their immaturity, dependency. In 1989, UN adopted the first binding UN document, CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child) for the protection of children and recognition of the children with the independent identity having fundamental rights same as the adults. CRC Article 19 imposes an obligation on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse and etc. while even in the care of parents. Although Article 19 does not refer to corporal punishment exactly, the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted General Comment No. 8 entitled ‘The Right to Protection from Corporal Punishment and Other Cruel or Degrading Forms of Punishment’ and recommended all States Parties including Korea to move to prohibit all corporal punishment. Nowadays 43 states ban all the corporal punishment in all settings, even in families. However, we allow a reasonable degree of corporal punishment by the interpretation of parents` rights of discipline for their child in civil law, though we don`t have any specific provisions about corporal punishment. This article aims to the legislative proposition about prohibition of corporal punishment in family in the context of Constitutional Law. It explains the right of children, CRC articles and General Comment related with the corporal punishment and reviews the legislative examples in major countries dealing with corporal punishment and problems. This article analyzes the right of the parents, right of child and the duty of state to protect dignity of child and physical integrity. Finally, it proposes the legislation to eliminate all the corporal punishment to protect right of children and to lead the decrease of the child abuses in family by the change of the attitude about corporal punishment.

공교육체계에서의 학생체벌에 대한 법적 고찰

정철호 한국아동권리학회 2006 아동과 권리 Vol.10 No.3

Corporal punishment in school has long been done as traditional practice in education. Nevertheless, its attribute is fundamentally connected with violence. It's doubtful whether corporal punishment does match with the purpose or means of education or not. These days the critical attitude about corporal punishment is concentrated rather on its methods and procedures than itself. But there is a obvious difference in recognition of corporal punishment between teachers and students in schooling field. There is no denying that the negative problems of corporal punishment is taken as an infringement of human rights. Considering that the objective of education is to cultivate democracy citizen, we must try to propose the problem against the justification of corporal punishment itself.From this point, this thesis tried to evaluate corporal punishment from legal viewpoint. First of all, it is a irrational legal discrimination that the violence not permitted with legal could be admitted only in student in the name of corporal punishment. Children, students are also possession of legal right and this is the basic sprit of the constitutional law system. Corporal punishment cannot be justified only in student, because it is essentially violent. Additionally, although the purpose of corporal punishment is for better education, it injures an individual's dignity and lessens their worth. This degrades the value of personality in spite of being used as a means for education. Finally corporal punishment is contrary to the principle of legalism. Even though corporal punishment is demanded for educational purpose, essentially, a constitutionally based country should provide the legal foundation to ensure the highest doctrine of basic human rights. These laws and enforcement ordinance need to minimize the restriction of basic rights for students, and give consideration toward proper measures for effective relief of students in need. ◈학교현장에서 행해지고 있는 체벌은 교육의 수단이라는 명목으로 오랜 기간 관용되어 왔다. 그러나 체벌에 대한 실태와 폐단에 대한 여러 보고들은 체벌의 부당성과 그 부정적 효과를 보여주고 있다. 현재 체벌에 대한 법률적 접근방식은 체벌 자체에 대하여 문제를 제기하기보다는 체벌의 방법과 절차 등을 중심으로 체벌에 대한 개별 사례에 대하여 접근하려는 경향이 지배적이지만, 체벌은 근본적으로 폭력이라는 속성을 가지고 있어서 교육이라는 목적과 수단에 과연 조화될 수 있는지에 대하여 의문을 제기하지 않을 수 없다. 물론, 우리나라에서 체벌은 법령에 근거여부와 관계없이 관행처럼 묵인되어 왔으며, 그 배경에는 입시위주의 교육풍토라는 변명이 자리 잡고 있으며, 그러한 변명을 무시하는 것 또한 현실을 외면하는 처사라는 것도 사실이다. 그러나 교육현장의 당사자들인 교사와 학생들 사이에 체벌에 대한 극명한 인식차이가 존재하고 실제로 체벌로 인한 부정적 문제들이 인권침해 문제로 조명되고 있으며 교육의 지향 하는 바 또한 민주적인 시민양성에 두어져야 한다는 것이 시대적 요청이라는 점을 고려할 때, 체벌과정에서의 적법절차 확보 내지 준수에서 한 걸음 나아가 체벌 자체의 정당성에 대한 진지한 문제제기를 해볼 때가 되었다고 생각한다. 필자는 이상의 문제의식에 기초하여 학교체벌에 대한 법적 평가를 시도하고자 한다. 본고에서는 우선 학생체벌에 대한 법적 근거 및 사법기관의 입장을 검토하며, 학생체벌에 대한 외국의 법제 내지 판례의 동향을 개관한 다음 현행 공교육체계에서 교사와의 관계에서 학생의 지위

반사회적 처벌, 그리고 정상적 처벌과 협조적 전략의 공진화

최정규(Choi, Jung-Kyoo),안도경(Ahn, T. K.) 한국사회경제학회 2013 사회경제평론 Vol.- No.41

공공재 게임에서 종종 발견되는 반사회적 처벌의 문제가 새롭게 관심의 대상이 되고 있다. 반사회적 처벌의 존재는 공공재 공급을 둘러싼 협조적 전략을 유지시킴에 있어 처벌의 유효성에 의문을 갖게 하며, 더 나아가 지금껏 받아들여져 왔던 협조전략과 처벌전략 간의 상관관계에 근본적으로 문제를 제기하는 계기가 되었다. 본 논문의 목적은 최근 논의되고 있는 반사회적 처벌의 문제를 검토하는 것이다. 첫째, 실증적으로 반사회적 처벌의 존재가 얼마나 심각하게 나타나며, 정상적 처벌의 유효성을 얼마나 떨어뜨리고 있는지를 확인할 것이다. 둘째, 이론적으로 반사회적 처벌의 존재가 기존 연구들에서 보였던 협조 전략과 처벌 전략간의 공진화를 부정하는 데까지 나아갈 수 있는지 그 전화적 경로를 확인해볼 것이다. 협조전략과 처벌전략 간의 공진화 및 반사회적 처벌의 진화 가능성을 컴퓨터 모의실험을 통해 살펴보고, 최근에 대두되고 있는 비판들과는 달리 협조 전략과 ‘정상적’ 처벌 전략이 공진화하면서 서로 보완적인 역할을 수행할 수 있는지를 확인할 것이다. Antisocial punishment refers to punishment inflicted upon cooperators in Public Goods Game experiments. Antisocial punishment behavior is widely observed in the laboratory experiments and is gaining attention because it raises doubts about the role of punishment in supporting the evolution of cooperative strategies. In particular, the question of whether cooperation and punishment can evolve together remains a puzzle. We address this puzzle using experimental data and agent-based simulations. First, we examine the frequency of antisocial punishment and its impact on the effectiveness of normal punishment. Second, we check if explicitly allowing antisocial punishment in a model could destroy the complementarity between cooperation and punishment. Our computer simulation shows that, as opposed to some of the recent studies on antisocial punishment, cooperation and 'normal' punishments co-evolve and achieve a substantial level of complementarity in supporting the evolution of cooperation.

가정 및 학교에서의 아동체벌에 관한 국제인권기준 분석 및 국내법 검토

장민영 중앙법학회 2013 中央法學 Vol.15 No.3

International standards of children's rights have moved towards eradicating physical punishment of children by parents and teachers. Universal human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, are interpreted towards banning corporal punishment of children at home and at school. Regional human rights treaties, including the European Social Charter (Revised), the European Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, are also considered legal grounds against corporal punishment of children in family and educational settings. Furthermore, universal and regional human rights treaty bodies strongly require states parties to take all measures to end corporal punishment of children in families and schools. Recently, Korea shows ground-breaking development with regard to corporal punishment of children in educational settings. Corporal punishment of children has been used as one of the most popular disciplinary methods in Korean families and schools for hundreds of years. However, Korea's Act on Elementary and Secondary Education and its Enforcement Decree started prohibiting direct corporal punishment of children in schools from 2011. However, this development is not sufficient for complying with the international human rights standards of corporal punishment of children. Direct corporal punishment is still inflicted of elementary and secondary school students in practice even after its legal prohibition. Korea's educational law does not provide any limitation on indirect corporal punishment of students. There is little discussion on parental corporal punishment in Korea. Worst of all, children's fundamental rights or human rights in terms of their physical integrity are not respected in Korea. Therefore, this article proposes three solutions to improve Korean law and practice of corporal punishment of children in families and schools, in comparison to international human rights law of corporal punishment of children. First, this article suggests that Korean society, particularly Korean courts and academic community, should pay attention to children's rights which are guaranteed under the Korean Constitution and the international human rights treaties Korea has ratified with regard to children's freedom from corporal punishment. Second, this article emphasizes importance of government campaigns to raise public awareness against corporal punishment of children. Third, this article presents three-phased legal reforms with regard to corporal punishment of children. The first-phased legal reform relates to revision of the Constitution. The second-phased legal reform relates to enactment of the Act on Children's Human Rights. The third-phased legal reform relates to revision of the current Act on Elementary and Secondary Education and the current Civil Act. These legal reforms include clear prohibition of direct corporal punishment of children, restriction on indirect corporal punishment of children, emphasis on responsibilities of families, schools and the State, and establishment of remedy systems.

케사레 베까리아(Cesare Beccaria)의 사형폐지론에 대한 비판적 연구

이상원(Sangwon Lee) 신학지남사 2015 신학지남 Vol.82 No.1

Cesare Beccaria became the starter of the movements of abolition of capital punishment in the western soceity by proposing the theory of complete abolition of capital punishment aiming at reforming the legal reality in which capital punishment had been imosed even to very trivial crimes. Through his theory which is grounded in utilitistic legal philosophy, he argues that the purpose of punishment must be changed from the realization of retributive justice to the efficient prevention of crimes. Capital punishment must be abolished, for it has no preventive effect of crimes except for the case of state treason. The primary purpose of punishment must be, however, the realization of retributive justice. The effect of prevention of crimes can be discussed after retributive justice has been accomplished. The Mosaic civil law realizes retributive justice thoroughly. Capital punishment is the most fundamental, universal legal institution which directs other legal punishments to realize retributive justice, for the fairest punishment to the most cruel crime i.e., intentional murder is none other than capital punishment. Capital punishment is supported by Genesis 9:6, the Mosaic civil law which applies it to about 20 crimes including intentional murder, and Romans13:4 etc. The Mosaic civil law and Romans 13:4 shows clearly that a nation is the admininstrator of capital punishment. The very realization of retributive justice which capital punishment aims at has the preventive effect of crimes, so that retributive justice and the preventive effect of crimes must not be separated. The preventive effect of crimes of capital punishment is identified in that God Himself says the effect, and capital punishment functions as a powerful and constant psychological controlling element. Capital punishment is better than life sentence in that it has a more effective remeding function. Just as the Mosaic civil law opens the possibility that capital punishment can be replaced by paying a ransom except for intentional murder, so the Reformed tradition opens broadly the possibility to replace capital punishment by other kinds of punishment like a long prison sentence except for intentional murder. Therefore, it is nor desirable to close the possibility imposing capital punishment even to intentional murder by abolishing capital punishment completely. It is to ignore the clear indications of the Scriptures about capital punishment.

간통죄 폐지의 정당성에 관한 고찰

박찬걸 경희대학교 법학연구소 2010 경희법학 Vol.45 No.2

Korean criminal law punishes for adultery and the public tend to regard adultery as a crime. In a related matter, The Korean government is getting down to work revisions to the Criminal Law. In this situation, the purpose of this article is to suggest concrete backgrounds for abolition of punishment for adultery in Korean Criminal Law. The concrete backgrounds for abolition of punishment for adultery is as follows,(1) First of all, The criminal law should be imposed as a last method when an offense violates important the benefit and protection of the law. (2) Also the benefit and protection of the law should be obvious. Generally, the benefit and protection of the law of punishment for adultery include good sexual morality, maintenance of monogamy and sound family life and sexual faithfulness between spouse, etc. However, it is doubtful that a definite concept as a foundation of punishment. (3) The greater part of scholars of criminal law argue for the abolition of punishment for adultery. Also Global trends show the tendency toward the abolition of punishment for adultery. (4) The punishment for adultery violates the right of choice concerning one’s own sexual activities. In conclusion, the punishment for adultery must be abolish in province of criminal law.

형벌의 기능론적 분석과 그 형사정책적 함의

권영법 법조협회 2014 法曹 Vol.63 No.3

Till now scholars of criminal law, criminologists, sociologists and psychologists have studied the functions of punishment; however, they could not reach the level of overall review and analysis on the whole function of punishment. This study reviews the whole function of punishment and examines the functions of punishment by punishment theory, sociology and psychology. The positive functions of punishment are special deterrence, general deterrence, restraint, rehabilitation, education, retribution and censure, atonement(Sühne), prevention of vigilantism, restoration and social integration. The negative functions of punishment are labelling and dysfunctions of imprisonment. The functionalism of punishment should be discussed and examined by multidisciplinary way in the dimension of crimalistics. Recent trend of punitivism and the legislation of severe penalty system based on such policy only make the positive functions of punishment weaker while increase the negative functions of punishment. These systems based on punitivism had been introduced with vague expectation that they will enhance deterrence function, retribution function, making restraint function and rehabilitation function; however, overall review and examination on the function of punishment should precede the introduction of new punishment system. Righteous punishment protects Rechtsgut and protection of the social order, aims for the value of legal peace and enforces condemnation that is corresponding to the extent of offense based on the value system of social community. Therefore, study on the functions of punishment and the review of punishment policy should be done within the framework of punishment theory. In addition, criminal policies, which give punishment in accordance with retribution principle but consider special and general prevention, minimize the negative functions of punishment and increase the positive functions, should be established. 그동안 형벌 기능에 대하여 형법학자, 범죄학자, 사회학자, 심리학자들이 그들 나름대로 검토하였지만 형벌 기능의 전체에 대한 조망과 분석에는 이르지 못하였다. 본고에서는 형벌 기능에 대한 전체적인 조망과 아울러 형벌 기능에 대한 형벌 이론적 검토뿐만 아니라 사회학적, 심리학적 검토도 하였다. 이에 의할 때 형벌의 순기능으로 특별억제, 일반억제, 무해화, 재활, 교육, 응징과 비난, 속죄, 보복 방지, 회복과 사회통합 기능이 있고, 형벌의 역기능으로 낙인 기능과 수감의 역기능이 있음을 보게 된다. 형벌의 기능은 범죄과학의 차원에서 다학제적 방법으로 논의되고 검토되어야 한다. 최근의 엄벌주의 사조와 이에 입각한 중형주의 입법은 형벌의 순기능을 약화시키고 형벌의 역기능만 불러올 뿐이라고 평가된다. 중형주의에 입각한 이들 제도들이 억제 기능, 응징 기능, 무해화 기능, 재활 기능을 제고할 것이라는 막연한 기대에 의해 도입되었지만, 새로운 형벌제도의 도입에 있어서는 형벌 기능의 전체적인 조망과 검토가 선행되어야 한다. 정당한 형벌이란 법익을 보호하고 사회질서를 유지하며 법적 평화를 이룬다는 가치를 지향하면서, 행위자의 규범 위반의 정도에 상응하게 사회 공동체의 가치 체계에 따라 비난을 가하는 것을 말한다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 형벌 기능에 대한 연구와 이에 따른 형벌정책의 검토는 이러한 형벌 이론의 틀 속에서 이루어져야 한다. 아울러 응보 원칙에 따라 형을 부과하되 특별예방과 일반예방을 고려하며, 형벌의 역기능을 최소화하고 순기능이 발휘될 수 있는 형사정책이 수립되어야 할 것이다.