http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 이천현 (검색결과 145 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
언론매체를 통한 범죄피해자의 신원공개 실태 및 방지대책
이천현 원광대학교 경찰학연구소 2006 경찰학논총 Vol.1 No.1
“The Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes”, “the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof” and “the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Victims” prohibit the disclosure of victims’ identities by mass media. However, prohibition-provisions of the disclosure of victims’ identities in these Acts have some problems. The first, application scope of prohibition-provisions is very narrow. The prohibition-provisions must not limit to some specific violent crimes or sexual crimes. These must be applied to all crime victims to protect crime victims substantially. The second, these prohibition-provisions prohibit the disclosure of crime victims’ name, age, address, occupation and countenance etc. Crime victims’ statement which are disadvantageous to the accused must not be disclosed. The third, prohibition-provisions of the disclosure of victims’ identities in these Acts have no punishment provisions. Punishment provisions are indispensable to efficiency of prohibition-provisions. The fourth, the disclosure of victims’ identities must be permitted through “consent of a victim” in consideration of relations with freedom of speech commonly. 범죄피해자 및 그 가족은 시간을 불문한 취재, 지속적․반복적인 취재, 근무처나 친척 등까지 취재하는 등 취재과정에서의 피해뿐만 아니라, 매스컴의 취재로 인해 주소․이름, 사건과는 직접 관계가 없는 프라이버시가 보도됨에 따라 심각한 정신적인 피해가 발생하고, 보도에 의해 주변에 노출되어 이사․실직 등이 발생하는 경우도 발생하고 있다. 게다가 현재에는 TV, 신문, 잡지 등 언론매체가 통신기술과 장비의 발달로 거대화, 광역화되어 가면서 잘못된 언론 보도에 따른 인권침해는 그 형태가 복잡하고 다양해졌을 뿐만 아니라 그에 따른 피해는 매우 빠르고 넓게 그리고 지속적으로 확산되는 경향이 있다. 따라서 한 번 침해되면 그 회복은 매우 어려워 언론보도로 인한 피해자의 인권침해는 현대 사회의 가장 심각한 문제 중의 하나이다. 그러나 언론매체를 통한 범죄피해자의 신원공개 등을 금지하고 있는 관련법제는 미비하여 범죄피해자 보호를 위한 충분한 기능을 발휘하고 있지 못하다. 언론보도 금지규정이 일부 강력범죄, 성폭력범죄 및 가정폭력범죄로 매우 한정되어 인정되고 있으며, 벌칙규정이 없어 훈시규정에 불과하여 그 실효성을 기대하기 어렵고, 그 규정방식에 있어서도-언론의 자유와의 관계상-허용한계가 통일화되어 있지 않다. 이 연구는 이러한 현행법상의 범죄피해자에 대한 언론보도 금지 규정의 문제점을 분석하고 그 개선방안을 제시하였다.
-
이천현 한국소년정책학회 2014 少年保護硏究 Vol.27 No.-
Most of the provisions prohibiting child abuse under theArticle 17 of Child Welfare Act are ambiguous in terms of itscontent and scope and some of them are redundant andunnecessary. In relation to other Acts, the provisions are not systematic,which causes problems with interpretations and applications ofthe Act. In particular, in consideration of the relationship betweenJuvenile Protection Act and Child Welfare Act, the prohibitedacts are redundant and unsystematic, and when there is a caseof child abuse under the Article 6 of Juvenile Protection Act,Child Welfare Act is not applied to the case but JuvenileProtection Act. And, when a case is subject to different Actssimultaneously - such as Criminal Law, Juvenile Protection Act,Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of SexualCrimes, Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles fromSexual Abuse, Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment,etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence, etc. - it is not clear todecide whether the case is concurrence of provisions orconcurrence of conceptions. The provisions on child abuse, which was established in 1961,should be amended in consideration of the changed social reality,criminological theories, and the relationships with other Actssuch as Juvenile Protection Act, etc., which were established andhave been in effect since the enactment of Child Welfare Act. Most of the prohibited acts under the Article 17 of Child WelfareAct should be expurgated. It is desirable that cases currentlysubject to the provisions under the Article 17 be subject to Acton Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of ChildAbuse, which is newly enacted, taking into consideration thesystemicity of Child Welfare Act and Act on Special CasesConcerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse.
-
-
-
이천현 한국형사판례연구회 2009 刑事判例硏究 Vol.17 No.-
Criminal Act Article 37 defines the concurrent crimes. The preceding paragraph of Article 37 states coincidence concurrent crimes which is defined as ‘several crimes for which judgement has not become final.' The post concurrent crimes is defined as ‘A crime for which judgement to punish has become final and the crimes committed before the said final judgement' in the latter part of Article 37. The reason for regulating the post concurrent crimes(the latter part of the Article 37, Article 39) besides coincidence concurrent crimes(the preceding part of the Article 37, Article 38) is that the crime for which judgement to punish has become final and the crimes committed before the said final judgement is sentenced as coincident concurrent crime by definition. Therefore, the event which is not noticed to the court cannot be the reason of giving advantage or (especially) disadvantage to the criminal suspect. Amended by Act No. 7623, July, 29, 2005, Criminal Act Article 39 (1) is stated as follows.' In the event there is a crime which has not been adjudicated among the concurrent crime, a sentence shall be imposed on the said crime taking account of equity with the case where the said crime is adjudicated concurrently with a crime which has been finally adjudicated. In this case the said punishment may be mitigated or exempted.' According to the amendment, it is possible to reduce the disadvantage when the criminal suspect is sentenced as post concurrent crime than sentenced as coincidence concurrent crime. The current decision(2006Do8376) represents the first meaningful Supreme Court decision of amended Article 39 (1). The decision includes ambiguous statement such as “deciding coincidentally and considering the equity" and the court may use the discretion in regard to reasonable determination of punishment by applying the previous statement. Therefore, the decision is not subject to restriction of severe application of Article 38 but also the mitigation or the exemption of punishment is considered as the court's genuine discretion. If the criminal suspect who commits a crime for which judgement to punishment has become final(b) and the crimes committed before the said final judgement(a) sentenced as coincident concurrent crime, the decision is not rational and it cannot meet the liability of the regulation. The current article critically examines the interpretation of Supreme Court statement of “deciding coincidentally and considering the equity" and the further conclusion.
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
